don't you think EU genre go into wrong direction?

[Arizal]

It had been some time without seeing some thread attacking DW stance on magistrates, hordes and East Asia. Surely, I like the new map and I would probably not go back to DW, but I must say that I completely agree with those who are against the new magistrates. It bugs me because I want to play the official game (or at least a balanced mod) if I want to take credit for my good gestion.

So, now that I stated that I don't want to remove magistrates manually, I don't know what is so great with those magistrates, since money was supposed to be good enough to limitate the countries. To the one that said countries had gestion problems, I say fine, and he is right, but that wasn't because there weren't "magistrates", that was because their loyalty didn't go directly to the king. In fact, the more I think of it, the more I think decentralization should be represented better than by a slider that we can, for the whole game, change during the 50th first years (in most of the case).

That didn't work like that! England, for example, was well centralized in, well, England, and I think Scotland, Wales and Ireland were also tightly controled (when they were finally conquered or inherited), but that wasn't the case for the thirtheen colonies. Spain was a patchwork, as well as Austria, and as well as an hypothetical unified Germany. Until all the feudal structure are destroyed, there is no real authoritarian system possible. So if they do another expansion, I expect to see something to represent the real power of a country. Annexing a vassal doesn't solve the problem, revolts happen when you try to unify your country.

Now, magistrates represent poorly, very poorly this aspect and I dislike them because they force us to construct just 5 improvements at the same time, which is unrealistic.

About the hordes, the original concept is not so bad, but frankly I don't buy the enormous technological delay in which they are. What I like is their ability to take territories while ignoring the existing frontiers, which is great because any country wanting to conquer the world would do so. By doing that, they leave the "badboy" system and are more susceptible to be at war. In my view, any country which goes in rampage should become a "Horde". Basically, this would be the effect of exploding our badboy. I don't like the war at each 5 years and the total absence of diplomacy with them.

 

[unmerged(371738)]

Needing to spend magistrates on buildings is good, it makes blobbing a bit less of a no-brainer.

This seems like controlling a problem the wrong way. An inability to subsidize canals is not why the Ottomans stopped blobbing into Europe. Severe logistical problems and internal politics were.

The problem with Paradox and frankly every other strategy game I've ever played is that running a gigantic empire is trivial because the resources it puts at your disposal rapidly outstrip the 'downsides' (even counting the technology-creep of a giant country like Russia, your sheer overpowering military might should allow you to smash into pretty much anyone). This is because most players like to play giant empires, and will bitch if it's made actually difficult to where it is practically impossible to hold onto Hindustan from London (as it well should be, the English governed more of a puppet state than an actual administrative district). Then a 'solution' comes along with gives some measure of constraint but for bizarre and meaningless reasons.

Basically, if you want to stop blobbing, making holding onto wrong culture/religion/political system provinces actually difficult and deal with the people who whine about that, or let the game favor land-oriented blobbers as it does now and hear people whine about blobs. Can't be everything to everyone.

Just be glad the game isn't actually realistic, as the player has nearly zero control of the economy or legal situation in a real middle ages simulator; and any aggression against Corsica is likely to wind up with you losing a decisive battle against Switzerland or some crap like that.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

This seems like controlling a problem the wrong way. An inability to subsidize canals is not why the Ottomans stopped blobbing into Europe. Severe logistical problems and internal politics were.

The way I see it, lack of magistrates is what represents those problems. It allows medium-sized nations sort of compete against larger ones by having better "buildings" in their provinces. And I agree that large empires are way too easy to manage. World conquest should be impossible, period.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

Also it's just bizarre that friggin' Constantinople doesn't have a church.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

Also it's just bizarre that friggin' Constantinople doesn't have a church.

Once again, it is safe to assume that every single province owned by a christian nation has a church. There were also cathedrals and town halls long before technology allows their construction.

What "church" represents is government control over/cooperation with clergy there so that message sent to people is "government is good, please don't revolt". Ditto for other improvements.

 

[FromasterG]

Once again, it is safe to assume that every single province owned by a christian nation has a church. There were also cathedrals and town halls long before technology allows their construction.

What "church" represents is government control over/cooperation with clergy there so that message sent to people is "government is good, please don't revolt". Ditto for other improvements.

I don't agree with this interpretation of the province improvements. I find it far too abstract when combined with the ladder-like progression and the nature of the buildings themselves.

When I click to build a church, university, dock, or fort, it strikes me that I am actually financing the building itself. Sure, it makes sense to say that the "church" is a way to express government involvement in a province's religious life, but I don't see that in the current model.

For instance, in that event where an heir dies, the "In the arms of the lord I find solace" choice gives a church in a random province. I can't see this "church" as the monarch deciding to use an established religious center to promote stability to help soothe his grief. I see it as a monarch building an actual building to commemorate the dead heir and/or exalt God.

For later examples like the "spy agency" I can accept that it isn't quite a building as much as an endeavor that would most likely necessitate direct government involvement, but, as I argued earlier, I don't think that the earlier buildings quite fit into this mold.

 

[James Beil]

Personally, I feel EU went wrong avoiding historical truth; I miss the historical events and decisions that made the game feel unique; while it's still in a league of it's own, EU3 isn't as good as her predecessor.

 

[unmerged(371738)]

Personally, I feel EU went wrong avoiding historical truth; I miss the historical events and decisions that made the game feel unique; while it's still in a league of it's own, EU3 isn't as good as her predecessor.

Historical events are just as unrealistic as random events. When Austria is a 1pm because it got utterly pwned by France 5 times in a row it really makes the rest of European history extremely improbable.

A realistic game would be a sim, not a historical-events catalogue.

For later examples like the "spy agency" I can accept that it isn't quite a building as much as an endeavor that would most likely necessitate direct government involvement, but, as I argued earlier, I don't think that the earlier buildings quite fit into this mold.

And Industrial Capacity is incoherent gibberish exploded by economic theory. All strategy games are tainted by central planning fetishes, and this makes them absurd (like communism).

Grand Strategy games are just as gamey as board games, just more complex. A more sim-like history game would fail to meet the demands for central authority most strategy gamers want. They're too invested in controlling macro-events to want to just 'deal with' the fact that provinces grow or don't grow on their own, not by the fiat of some legislator. Which means the game engine amounts to magic, more or less.

I, for one, wouldn't mind playing an actual middle-ages sim complete with decisive battles rather than total-warfare; but the AI and habits of the gaming community (both players and designers) need to take a shift for that to be likely to come out.

 

[Jasonkp]

I don't agree with this interpretation of the province improvements. I find it far too abstract when combined with the ladder-like progression and the nature of the buildings themselves.

When I click to build a church, university, dock, or fort, it strikes me that I am actually financing the building itself. Sure, it makes sense to say that the "church" is a way to express government involvement in a province's religious life, but I don't see that in the current model.

I think Nikk has a more realistic concept of what the province improvements represent. When you click to build a church, it isn't one building being built in the province, it is existing churches being repaired, clergy being supported, and new churches constructed across the province. The buildings aren't a single structure, they are infrastructure being established and maintained to serve the entire province, not just the capital.

 

[knul]

I don't agree with this interpretation of the province improvements. I find it far too abstract when combined with the ladder-like progression and the nature of the buildings themselves.

When I click to build a church, university, dock, or fort, it strikes me that I am actually financing the building itself. Sure, it makes sense to say that the "church" is a way to express government involvement in a province's religious life, but I don't see that in the current model.

For instance, in that event where an heir dies, the "In the arms of the lord I find solace" choice gives a church in a random province. I can't see this "church" as the monarch deciding to use an established religious center to promote stability to help soothe his grief. I see it as a monarch building an actual building to commemorate the dead heir and/or exalt God.

For later examples like the "spy agency" I can accept that it isn't quite a building as much as an endeavor that would most likely necessitate direct government involvement, but, as I argued earlier, I don't think that the earlier buildings quite fit into this mold.

I agree that the building system is artifical and abstract. It's hard to accept that they represent actual buildings (the king has to build markets? Roads are destroyed if conquered?), yet nothing in-game indicates what they are supposed to be if not the named building itself.

I would advise people to see the building names more like suggestions or tips for your own explanation, otherwise the system makes no sense. You could for example imagine that the church build by the `heir dies event` is something like the Eleanor crosses. Okay, it´s not strictly a church, but it´s a monument that inspires people and has impact.

While I agree that the building probably should be named differently, I have to admit that I personally wouldn´t know a system that would be that much better.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

I don't agree with this interpretation of the province improvements. I find it far too abstract when combined with the ladder-like progression and the nature of the buildings themselves.

When I click to build a church, university, dock, or fort, it strikes me that I am actually financing the building itself. Sure, it makes sense to say that the "church" is a way to express government involvement in a province's religious life, but I don't see that in the current model.

For instance, in that event where an heir dies, the "In the arms of the lord I find solace" choice gives a church in a random province. I can't see this "church" as the monarch deciding to use an established religious center to promote stability to help soothe his grief. I see it as a monarch building an actual building to commemorate the dead heir and/or exalt God.

For later examples like the "spy agency" I can accept that it isn't quite a building as much as an endeavor that would most likely necessitate direct government involvement, but, as I argued earlier, I don't think that the earlier buildings quite fit into this mold.

Earlier buildings are churches, ports, marketplaces, workshops, etc. that both existed before technologies make them available and would be constructed without any input from the government. I doubt there was any civilized province at the game start that did not already have a church (or its equivalent) and a marketplace. Also, having a single church or a marketplace cost an equivalent of yearly tax of several provinces would be ridiculous. Hell, every town had a church and there were several towns per in-game province.

 

[unmerged(371738)]

I would advise people to see the building names more like suggestions or tips for your own explanation, otherwise the system makes no sense.

The 'accurate' way to describe province improvements would be "TRADE INFRASTRUCTURE 1, TRADE INFRASTRUCTURE 2", etc., the names are basically flavour.

 

[Me_]

I'd like to point out that while the buildings constructed by the player are entirely abstract the starting buildings are often (although not always) based on actual buildings and institutions. So Hagha Sophia should probably exist.

E.g.

# 173 Labourd - Principal cities: Bayonne (can't change file name)

owner = ENG
controller = ENG
capital = "Bayonne"
citysize = 2500
culture = basque
religion = catholic
hre = no
base_tax = 3
trade_goods = wine
manpower = 4
add_core = ENG
add_core = GUY
fort1 = yes 
[COLOR="Red"]temple = yes # La Cathédrale Sainte-Marie[/COLOR]
discovered_by = eastern
discovered_by = western
discovered_by = muslim
discovered_by = ottoman

le-de-France - Principal cities: Paris

owner = FRA
controller = FRA
capital = "Paris"
citysize = 70000
culture = cosmopolitan_french
religion = catholic
hre = no
cot = yes
base_tax = 12
trade_goods = grain # gameplay, see EU II
manpower = 8
add_core = FRA
discovered_by = eastern
discovered_by = western
discovered_by = muslim
discovered_by = ottoman
[COLOR="Red"]courthouse = yes # Exception: Le Parlement de Paris[/COLOR]
fort1 = yes
fort2 = yes
marketplace = yes
[COLOR="Red"]temple = yes # La Notre Dame de Paris
university = yes # La Sorbonne[/COLOR]

#236 - London

owner = ENG
controller = ENG
culture = english
religion = catholic
hre = no
base_tax = 14
trade_goods = grain
manpower = 6
capital = "London"
citysize = 30000
add_core = ENG
fort1 = yes
fort2 = yes
[COLOR="Red"]temple = yes #Westminster Abbey[/COLOR]
marketplace = yes
discovered_by = western
discovered_by = muslim
discovered_by = ottoman
discovered_by = eastern

 

[unmerged(202023)]

I'd prefer to have a national budget instead of these one-time investments in provinces that we call buildings. Why would a church or a spy agency only once need a magistrate and money? If they represent state institutions then they need continuous upkeep. I really dislike this civ-like building system.

 

[Jasonkp]

Sure, real world infrastructure often has a keystone. Westminster Abbey was not the first church built in London, but it was a product of the overall development of the area. Naming them in the files simply provides justification.

 

[unmerged(371738)]

I'd prefer to have a national budget instead of these one-time investments in provinces that we call buildings. Why would a church or a spy agency only once need a magistrate and money? If they represent state institutions then they need continuous upkeep. I really dislike this civ-like building system.

Yes, I agree that buildings and rebels should (mostly) be represented by funding, laws/decisions and technology, not civ-style province improvements.

Westminster Abbey was not the first church built in London, but it was a product of the overall development of the area. Naming them in the files simply provides justification.

I'm not sure much of anything as far as game-interface and command can be justified. The way these countries run is utterly preposterous, quite often the literal opposite of how it would work. It's ultimately going to be gamey, as all strategy games are, until gamers are willing to accept 'you can't see or command your soldiers and wars will turn you into a bankrupt, backwards hell-hole no matter how many you 'win'"

 

[unmerged(66213)]

Why horses are as quick as foot soldier?

That is the easiest thing to mod. Open common/defines.txt, and edit this line:

1.0 #_MDEF_CAVALRY_SPEED_,

Make it 100, and you can have hypersonic rocket-horses, if you wish.

 

[ghengilhar]

Perhaps there should be a modifier based on government buildings that give a bonus to magistrate growth so large countries with many provences can have lots of magistrates. I way I think of magistrates is that they are the early modern civil service and just because your Ming or France doesn't always mean you'll have a larger civil service than the Netherlands or a HRE OPM. Just a thought as I quite enjoy DW.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

What "church" represents is government control over/cooperation with clergy there

Which should still mean Constantinople starts with a church, because the Byzantine Emperor was supreme over the church just by being the Emperor. That was like half of the conflict between East and West.

 

[unmerged(106498)]

I could write a 20 page list of things I'd like to see changed in some way in EU3, and at the end of that list would be my firm beleif that it's still the best grand strategy game ever.