iGenovese said:
Well, said. An open dynastic system would make this game Narnia Universalis.
Dynasty Potential
- Thread starter Prince Eugene
- 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.
Well, said. An open dynastic system would make this game Narnia Universalis.
Not true. Well, of course, the whole concept of blood clans became much less important issue, but still it was one of the vital things in the life of every kingdom. I have just read Manfred's Napoleon biography - would you imagine how much time did he spend on arranging marriages? Okay, he is not the best example - was kinda crazy at this point - but still I don't think introducing few pictures, new names and a rule of inheritance would ruin the game itself. Quite the contrary, I am a supporter of introducing the system.iGenovese said:
I sincerely hope the deterministic event system from EU2 is dropped and replaced with an open-ended CK model. After all this is supposed to be a game, not a simulation.Markusw7 said:
You don't. I never look for a SuperBride. My house rules say, mary a decent wife in one of your neighbouring countries or one of your vasalls. Takes four minutes, tops.Sonny said:And spend all our time bride hunting?? No thanks.
I want to manage my country, not my royal court or family. I'll play something like The Sims if i want to do that. (But i don't)Martinus said:
I would hope for something of a dynasty system but utterly scaled down, but still there. No more tons of courtiers (in fact none: read the Parlament thread).
Modified suggestion:
You could have a dynasty system (limited to families). But they (all but close family members) don't exist in the CK term. Instead we would have only portraits (less memory requirements), no stats. If you want you can "Activate" any character; his stats are then randomly generated and he now exists in a character sense. A nice feature would be dynasty trees (like in Rome: Total War) with different scale settings, like only straight bloodline, no more distant than cousins and so on.
You could have a dynasty system (limited to families). But they (all but close family members) don't exist in the CK term. Instead we would have only portraits (less memory requirements), no stats. If you want you can "Activate" any character; his stats are then randomly generated and he now exists in a character sense. A nice feature would be dynasty trees (like in Rome: Total War) with different scale settings, like only straight bloodline, no more distant than cousins and so on.
Registered said:
Seconded. I understand having a royal court since they were relevant for managing the country, but the focus is (should be) on the country.
arcorelli said:
The king IS the country. So you are still managing the country.
Still though, I cannot understand the seemingly allergic replies from some posters here against a dynastic system, even limited. Why a simplified dynastic system, like in M:TW, fails to convince you?
Why wouldn't Paradox take the chance to build on the strengths of the groundbreaking feature in CK and implement it in EU3, while learning from their mistakes in that game?
I just want to know your main arguments except "nah, I don't feel like managing a family..."
D.
Drakken said:The king IS the country. So you are still managing the country.
Still though, I cannot understand the seemingly allergic replies from some posters here against a dynastic system, even limited. Why a simplified dynastic system, like in M:TW, fails to convince you?
Why wouldn't Paradox take the chance to build on the strengths of the groundbreaking feature in CK and implement it in EU3, while learning from their mistakes in that game?
I just want to know your main arguments except "nah, I don't feel like managing a family..."
D.
To be honest, I just think the concept does not fit into the EU series, IMHO. To me the main value of the game (as well as being an incredibly amusing one) is the feeling you´re part of the history, and you´re changing it. Having real kings, real generals, explorers, the historical events and how to react to them...
I can not see an open dynasty system adding any fun to the game. If it´s only a pool of your main leaders, including ministers, or the validos in Spain, then it´s OK. But searching for irreal brides for my irreal prince just does not match the spirit of the series.
Anyway it´s only an opinion (BTW I have not played the game you mentioned).
Peter Ebbesen said:Mowers, in all likelyhood, it would make for an exceedingly long game only attractive to a small number of players, and it would not be EU3 (play-feel, attracting the player base of the EU series) in anything but name. Victoria style Pops were a great experiment in simulation - which flunked spectacularly in execution and fun, and CK Dynasties, while interesting, tended to collapse under their own weight in micromanagement except for the most dedicated dynastical builders. The clunky interface helped towards that end, certainly, but the main problem remained ever increasing numbers of nobodies to manage events for.
Which are two of the reasons why neither of those two games came anywhere close to the popularity of EU2.
Repeating failure in order to be more "realistic" and "historic" seems like the sort of path that a smart software developer wouldn't take. Thus I fully expect Paradox to let EU3 remain focused on overall strategy from a classic "Kings & Battles" perspective rather than delve into making it more dynastical-management or population focused, or, if those aspects are further developed, it will be to a much, much, smaller degree than in CK or Victoria.
What I read into the "CK personality..." quote is something far more simple. Instead of giving a monarch the DIP/ADM/MIL stats, he'll get some base stats and a number of traits (reflective of the real person in history, no matter how "ahistorical" that may seem), with the possibility of adding to traits via random events. A large part of the charm of the EU series (however unrealistic from an ahistorical development point of view) was the "I know this general/king/event/whatnot from my history lessons and/or past games" - and I see no good reason to abandon such a good working mechanic just for the sake of something arbitrarily labeled realism.
Another example of this is the good old contextual events vs. historical events. There's no doubt whatsoever which fits best in any sort of ahistorical history, given how often the latter are completely inappropriate to the sort of world the occur in, but nevertheless, they have a certain charm. Compare, e.g.
with the historic:
The latter event is obviously superior, even if (in your current game), your state religion is Banananism and the event really shouldn't happen just because it did historically.
*ducks*
As much in my heart as I don't want to admit it, I think Peter Ebbeson is correct on all points, while I think some very stripped down dynastic system would improve gameplay, I think the focus of the game needs to be kept
My one criticism is that I think CK was not so successful because of dynastic system, but because of the usually cited problems based on its development history and mostly because in these days of the TOTAL WAR series it was not very pretty and especially no battle system.
Amadís de Gaula said:
In M:TW if your King had the same name and number than a important real monarch (Richard I, Edward III or Philippe II, for example), he had the same stats, vices and virtues than his real counterpart.
We could use a similar ystem. For example, if France has Louis XIV he would have the same traits as in life. However, fictional monarchs would have traits of their own.
Drakken said:
That would be nice.
But being the historical part important for me, I would not like fictional monarchs.
Peter Ebbesen - Contextual said:
Peter Ebbesen - Historical said:
I really don't see why the latter should be superior if my country has converted to Banananism, gotten rid of its sheep and the practice of backward genuflection has become universal.
I would plump myself halfway between the Contextual and Historical camps, though I think you would need a degree of randomness for the Contextual ones to be more fun. I always found the EU2 "Unprovoked Revolt" much more fun than any historical one (for which I was generally prepared).
Moreoever, though it could follow intuitively that Contextual events tend to produce ahistorical outcomes, weren't Historical events themselves contextual?
EDIT: Oh my! After 5 years, I'm finally a Lieutenant General.
This is not a key issue to me, but from reading it, it seems there's less here than meets the eye. Assuming EUIII will be as mod-friendly as EUII is, there are plenty of things you can do to play with monarchs. So why build in features, unless they have VERY broad support? Let the modders flourish.
Drakken said:The king IS the country. So you are still managing the country.
Er, he/she was not. Kings wanted to be the country and sometimes they came close. But a country got a lot more than the king (heck, even only the state was a lot more than the king). After all, a Colbert was way more important than the third removed cousin of the king. And I guess a Pitt was almost as important as the king itself. We are not playing a feudal realm anymore.
Drakken said:
Because a lot of EU2 players do not liked CK? And to be precise, are not interested in that EU3 became CK2 only than in XVI-XVIII centuries instead than in medieval times? And a lot of that was not only implementation, is concept. I find CK concept kind of fun, but I don't want to play that when playing an early modern country.
A some kind of dinastic system can be used -and I guess nothing more complex than M:TW- but it should not be that important.
I think that is the main argument. People want to play EU3, not CK2.Drakken said:
For me, the thing the game could use would be that personality thing (and for it to be dynamic, so you wouldn't be completely assured your historical monarch would indeed turn out historical) and a system in place to generate rulers if your historical ruler list runs out. Much more than that and you are probably detracting from the EU experience.
Gwalcmai said:
some people would like CK2 you know. The Habsburg encirlement would actually make sense then togehter with the 30 y war, war of spanish succesion, austrian league etc.
Quift said:
With CK type dynasties there may not even be a Habsburg dynasty. Then even more people would be upset (think of all the Byzantophiles who are upset because their favorite is not in the game).