Whay Estern Europe dosenth have so many provinces like Western Europe??? Because we estern europens where eqal at population whit western europeens..... sorry for my wraiting
Estern Europe
- Thread starter unmerged(62858)
- 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.
- Status
I agree with you, but this dosenth meens that we dont have teritory and poplation. For example in EU2 the Netherland have surface of 40.000 sqare Km and havev 5 prov. and Romania has 300.000 sqare Km and has 5 prov. Is not faire.Van der Gent said:
Sorry for my english
it's because, as you could hear right here, those westerners think west europe was for some reason more important.
and sence they and americans are the ones who will actually buy the game, instead of cracking it like we do it in eastern europe, we must keep quiet
and sence they and americans are the ones who will actually buy the game, instead of cracking it like we do it in eastern europe, we must keep quiet
Well, since we are on that topic...
...its true that many people assume their own history is more important, simply because it has been more glorified or researched than someone elses.
Take the example of Alexander the Great - known throughout the world due to the spread of European style education systems during the colonial era, he is well known in pop culture. Yet there have been plenty of asian rulers, especially those responsible for uniting Persia, India or China, who have equalled or surpassed Alexander, yet are unheard of in pop culture.
So, just because they are less heard of, it is often assumed that the achievments of European rulers like Alexander were the greatest (with the exception of Genghis Khan, who ruled such a large area of the planet that he simply could not be ignored).
Arguably rulers like Qin Shi Huang, Cyrus the Great, Darius, Ashoka the Great and Chandragupta contributed more to the history of the world around that time than Alexander, since they forged long term empires in areas of the world that had some of the highest populations, spread early religious ideas like Zoroastrainism, Legalism and Buddhism.
...its true that many people assume their own history is more important, simply because it has been more glorified or researched than someone elses.
Take the example of Alexander the Great - known throughout the world due to the spread of European style education systems during the colonial era, he is well known in pop culture. Yet there have been plenty of asian rulers, especially those responsible for uniting Persia, India or China, who have equalled or surpassed Alexander, yet are unheard of in pop culture.
So, just because they are less heard of, it is often assumed that the achievments of European rulers like Alexander were the greatest (with the exception of Genghis Khan, who ruled such a large area of the planet that he simply could not be ignored).
Arguably rulers like Qin Shi Huang, Cyrus the Great, Darius, Ashoka the Great and Chandragupta contributed more to the history of the world around that time than Alexander, since they forged long term empires in areas of the world that had some of the highest populations, spread early religious ideas like Zoroastrainism, Legalism and Buddhism.
Another answer is that paradox might be afraid to put more provinces in as to not make a mistake you know how firy we east europeans get if a province is in the wrong place wrongly named or owned , however the only game i think they made the right provs for east europe was vicki they did get the population all f up true but provs were great i was hoping they would mantain them but it seems not.So besides knowing west europe better they do not want ot cause any tensions the best thing they coudl do is let us mod the provs.
Population density in the west was usually higher then in central and eastern Europe and to be blunt... Most buyers of the game are western Europeans or North Americans (who seem to be more familiar with western Europe then with the rest) so obviously that is where Paradox invests more energy.Dima said:
It is actually an advantage to have a smaller number of provinces covering the same area, at least in EUII, it was. Stability and tech costs are lower in that system - I don't know how EUIII will differ in this regard.
Because it provides optimum opportunity to achieve game balance without driving up the system requirements beyond a reasonable level.
Warning...I will be watching the progress of this thread very closely considering the issues we've had with members being unable to discuss such topics while remaining polite and respectful of other posters. If there's so much as a whiff of an issue I will lock it and issue formal warnings to those involved.
You've been given fair warning now. Please don't force me to get nasty.
Warning...I will be watching the progress of this thread very closely considering the issues we've had with members being unable to discuss such topics while remaining polite and respectful of other posters. If there's so much as a whiff of an issue I will lock it and issue formal warnings to those involved.
You've been given fair warning now. Please don't force me to get nasty.
surely, more westernians buy this game, but if i feel treated worse or disrespected i wont buy it. this could be good opportunity to let them know eastern europe's history.
for many years history of eastern europe was diregarded, i remember reading readers opinions on amazon concerning norman davis' book "europe" on european history. its "guilt" was supposed to be bias to the eastern europe, anyone who has the book sees there is more info about western europe, but it was more than 1 page about few centuries of poland or ukraine history. Basically i wanted to say that better eastern europe is in interest of westernians, people from eastern europe buying this game know it anyway.
Ps. at least paradox could use modded maps for eu2 to make proper borders... (hopefully they will be modded anyway )
for many years history of eastern europe was diregarded, i remember reading readers opinions on amazon concerning norman davis' book "europe" on european history. its "guilt" was supposed to be bias to the eastern europe, anyone who has the book sees there is more info about western europe, but it was more than 1 page about few centuries of poland or ukraine history. Basically i wanted to say that better eastern europe is in interest of westernians, people from eastern europe buying this game know it anyway.
Ps. at least paradox could use modded maps for eu2 to make proper borders... (hopefully they will be modded anyway
)
Dima said:
B/c of a wester bias of course.
This kind of relates: I was reading the Wiki article on Kievan Russia, and they said that the major cities had sewage draining systems and were larger than almost all the cities in the west at the time. Almost everyone was literate also as they had public school. Now, I was skeptical considering, in a western education, the farther east you get the more barbaric until you hit China which is considered amazingly civilized by everyone.
I don't know what to think. Maybe Kievan Russia was a far more advanced society than things west of it. And shouldn't that mean there should be more provinces?
Deo89 said:
More provinces, more fun!
I'm somewhat sad that EU3 doesn't have significantly more provinces than EU2. Thank god the map will be Moddable I say.
grabah said:it's because, as you could hear right here, those westerners think west europe was for some reason more important.
and sence they and americans are the ones who will actually buy the game, instead of cracking it like we do it in eastern europe, we must keep quiet
lol, thats probably the real answere
I think more provs would be better. It would prevent Russian or Polish border move from moscow to Warsoe during 1 war.
but I guess untill next EU is made by EE or Asians we will not see much improvment.
but I guess untill next EU is made by EE or Asians we will not see much improvment.
"For some reason" PROBABLY has to do with the fact that most people (Americans included) live in part of the world that were shaped by Western Europe. Comparatively fewer people had their nation's history significantly shaped by Eastern Europe.
Eastern Europe - like Asia, like many others - has a long and important history, and its nations were - until the 18th and 19th century - major players in Europe.
That'S the caveat. Major players, *in Europe*.
Unlike Western Europe, Eastern Europe's role (Russia set aside) in the rest of the world was much less noticeable. There were no Polish-Lithuanian or Hungarian colonial empires ; their traders did not force open ports in China.
As such, people the world over will know and study western European history -because it directly affect them - but won't study Asian, East European, or African history, because what effect those regions have had on them is pretty much limited to their interaction with Western Europe.
Or, in other words - Western Europe's may not have played a more IMPORTANT role in history than Eastern Europe. It most certaily played a more *WIDESPREAD* role, however, leading more people to be concerned with (and thus know of) Western Europe history.
Eastern Europe - like Asia, like many others - has a long and important history, and its nations were - until the 18th and 19th century - major players in Europe.
That'S the caveat. Major players, *in Europe*.
Unlike Western Europe, Eastern Europe's role (Russia set aside) in the rest of the world was much less noticeable. There were no Polish-Lithuanian or Hungarian colonial empires ; their traders did not force open ports in China.
As such, people the world over will know and study western European history -because it directly affect them - but won't study Asian, East European, or African history, because what effect those regions have had on them is pretty much limited to their interaction with Western Europe.
Or, in other words - Western Europe's may not have played a more IMPORTANT role in history than Eastern Europe. It most certaily played a more *WIDESPREAD* role, however, leading more people to be concerned with (and thus know of) Western Europe history.
Bloody hell. People get over yourselves. This reminds me of the people in my home city of Vancouver in western canada complaining about eastern Canada.
First because for the last half of the last century there was something called the Iron curtain so it was alot harder to research eastern european history in the west. Also the research done on eastern european history didnt diseminate as easily to the west. So its A LOT harder to gather the information about eastern europe in the west than you may think. There are not as many history books because of this.
Secondly, it was western European nations & Russia that colonized the world. Thats a rather large portion of this game. I cant think of one eastern european nation that colonised any part of the world with the Exception of Russia.
Thirdly the Game never claims to be even handed in all aspects of the game for all nations. The game can only have so many provinces, too many and you start to need higher and higher system requirements to run the game. That means you have to make choices. So who do you think should get those provinces? The smart thing is to concentrate on the areas where the game is going to sell more copies and sweden just because sweden is the holy land so sweden needs alot of provinces.
Fourthly I'd rather have fewer richer provinces than more poorer provinces. So its not like you are being short change game play wise. The more province you have the more it costs to upgrade each one. The fewer you have the less investment you need to get max output from those provinces. The total economic and manpower values of a given nations geographic area is going to be the same, if you have 3 provinces or 7 provinces. And 7 provinces are going to be more expensive to get up to max economic value. So you have an advantage over western europe's nations.
First because for the last half of the last century there was something called the Iron curtain so it was alot harder to research eastern european history in the west. Also the research done on eastern european history didnt diseminate as easily to the west. So its A LOT harder to gather the information about eastern europe in the west than you may think. There are not as many history books because of this.
Secondly, it was western European nations & Russia that colonized the world. Thats a rather large portion of this game. I cant think of one eastern european nation that colonised any part of the world with the Exception of Russia.
Thirdly the Game never claims to be even handed in all aspects of the game for all nations. The game can only have so many provinces, too many and you start to need higher and higher system requirements to run the game. That means you have to make choices. So who do you think should get those provinces? The smart thing is to concentrate on the areas where the game is going to sell more copies and sweden just because sweden is the holy land so sweden needs alot of provinces.
Fourthly I'd rather have fewer richer provinces than more poorer provinces. So its not like you are being short change game play wise. The more province you have the more it costs to upgrade each one. The fewer you have the less investment you need to get max output from those provinces. The total economic and manpower values of a given nations geographic area is going to be the same, if you have 3 provinces or 7 provinces. And 7 provinces are going to be more expensive to get up to max economic value. So you have an advantage over western europe's nations.
- Status