Estern Europe

[unmerged(60670)]

As I understand, the talk is about paying attention not only to western european part, but to the rest of the world too. I'm American market customer and I will definetely buy the copy of the game right after release, I'm waiting for preordering now, but Eastern Europe is a very interesting place for me and I think it will be hard to find 100,000 people who will buy the game and not paying any attention to the eastern Europe.

But I see that Paradox goes in right direction - they started it a half year ago with a 6-provinces picture of Korea. Just for better representation of peace deals for improvement of geography knowledge of players. Due to EUI and EUII I know much more about history and geography. Thank's for this!

For people who think that number of provincies proportional to strength. It's easy to create from one province with tax income 6 and manpower .4 two privincies with tax income 3 and manpower .2 in each. This will leave the strength as it is, but as Registered mentioned, it will increase stability cost and number of places where rebells can appear. So think twice before proposing slicing your favourite provincies!

Moreover, slicing will increase your micromanagement in meaning of more moves/clicks but it will add also a name of the region and the regional capital. So it's not that easy choice as somebody may think.

Everybody has his own history, so please, let's not offense eastern europe in not having history - it was just less documented or in not having customers - sometimes they are in places you don't expect them to be...

 

[Tunch Khan]

as for me i stop here, there is no point to discuss it anyway, since it wont be changed, it is just wasted time

True, afterall, there is no such thing as Eastern Europe. It either belongs to Mother Russia or is an Ottoman vilayet. Everything else falls under the category of temporary state of anarchy which can be represented with rebel forces in EU III.

 

[Belissarius]

So, a one-two provinced minor with low stability cost and no rebels should be able to beat the crap out of ,say , the Austrian empire quite easily ?

Oh dont be so bloody deliberatly obtus.

Take a eastern european two province nation. That nation's economy is divided between teh two provinces along with Manpower. The nations stability costs and technologies cost are based on the two provinces. IF paradox took this same geographic area and split it up into 7 provinces you would have a much WEAKER nation than if it was just two priovinces.

It would cost more to upgrade all provice. It would cost more for stability more chance at rebellions. Technology costs are greater now. the economic strength of this nation would be the same as a two province nation or a 7 province nation because if its based on 7 provinces they would divide the same economic value of said nation between teh 7 provinces than if they divided it between 2 provinces. So you dont GAIN anything from more provinces.

So what we are saying is a nation that is currently divided up into two provinces has a lot more advantages than if that same nation had a different map that divided up its territory into 7 provinces. So you are NOT being short changed game play wise with fewer provinces. You may not be gaining as detailed peace treaties and negotiations but you gain other benifits in economic and techological management along with greater stability.

so STOP complaining.

 

[Belissarius]

I couldn`t agree on that. Having more provinces would definitely raise the stability cost, but would also increase incomes from production and taxes. Military potential would also be larger due to the more manpower you get from those provinces.

NO you dont get more economic strength. when they take a nation and divide it up they would take into account the total potential economic strength of said nation. You gain more production income but you'd lose out on other incomes like taxes and tolls. So that yout total ptential economic stength would be the same. but your economic strength would be spread over a larger number of provinces so that it would cost you more to gain the benifits of the potential ecomonic strength from each province.

 

[unmerged(60670)]

True, afterall, there is no such thing as Eastern Europe. It either belongs to Mother Russia or is an Ottoman vilayet. Everything else falls under the category of temporary state of anarchy which can be represented with rebel forces in EU III.

I don't want to sound in the same unintelligent way, so I'll just put here some links about some Eastern European States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscovy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth

I didn't post here links about Central European-South European countries, because people I know from those countries want to be reffered as to central europeans or south europeans. This makes Ottoman Empire not an Eastern European Empire but an Asian and South European Empire. However, Russian Empire was an Eastern European and Asian Empire - that's true. But I know nobody who refers to it as to Mother Russia...

 

[unmerged(3259)]

bias and game fun

Intriguing, the way this game seems to evoke national feelings of being dealt with unfairly. Personally, I do not really care. I am Dutch, and have indeed played the Netherlands (once). But when I was playing as France, or Denmark, or Hainault, or a variety of German states, I made certain to conquer the rich Dutch provinces there as quickly as possible, and keep them firmly under my French / Danish / Hainaultish / German heel!

The only valid nationalism in this game for me is that of whoever I'm playing, and not even that is serious...

Here's a nice and true anecdote illustrating national blinkers when it comes to world history. About 20 years ago there was a US documentary series on the East front in WWII. It's title was 'The Forgotten War'.

Don't raise your voices; the audience it aimed at apparently knew little about the German-Russian front, and now had a chance to learn about it. Every nation has similar blinkers, and the game needs to cater for those who are going to buy it (while still allowing everyone to roam at will).

But somewhat later the series was shown on German television, dubbed in German as is their custom. But they did not just translate the title, but altered it a bit: it was now 'Der unvergessene Krieg'...*

Kind of puts the game in perspective, wouldn't you say?



* the unforgotten war

 

[unmerged(62858)]

Intriguing, the way this game seems to evoke national feelings of being dealt with unfairly. Personally, I do not really care. I am Dutch, and have indeed played the Netherlands (once). But when I was playing as France, or Denmark, or Hainault, or a variety of German states, I made certain to conquer the rich Dutch provinces there as quickly as possible, and keep them firmly under my French / Danish / Hainaultish / German heel!

The only valid nationalism in this game for me is that of whoever I'm playing, and not even that is serious...

I agree with you, i, my self play with the Ottoman Empire and conquer the romania provinces. BUT!!! the 3 romanian mediaval states(Wallachia, Moladavia and Transilvania) never dissaperd from the map!!!(anexanted)
And as romanian, i m proud that we fighted with the ottomans and rezisted them.And in the game Walachia dosenth have a chance!!!
Same for Hungari,Serbia,Croatia,Bulgaria....

Sorry for my english

 

[unmerged(62858)]

I

I didn't post here links about Central European-South European countries, because people I know from those countries want to be reffered as to central europeans or south europeans. ..

What does this meen???



I salute all ESTERN EUROPEENS!!!!!! even if we ar differnet! and hate each other!

Sorry for my english :rofl:

 

[Namm]

It's main focus is on the "West" because they were the major players of the 16th-18th century militarly and economically. Not because the developers are ignorant of Asian history.

The major players during the timespan of EU3 were factually China and Mughal Empire. They fielded huge armies that dwarfed probably all western counterparts (as for "militarily") and they stod for the vast majority of the goods produced and traded ("economically").

More accurately, the western powers laid the ground for their later dominance through colonization and establishing of trade networks during the 16th-18th century. Something which proved to be quite useful when steam engines, factories etc. popped up (after EU3), and England conveniently enough was full of easily accessible coal (extremely cheap energy).

Including also an in-depth simulation of Eastern Europe (and the Indian subcontinent, the New World and so on) would make EU3 (several times) much more fun to play, but seeing as how the dev team doesn't have the time or resources to achieve that and have clearly showed us how ignorant they indeed are (remember the "speed bump" remark?) I put all my hope to the mod teams to finalize this (without doubt great) game.

 

[Evie HJ]

Not QUITE accurate Namm.

The major POWERS of the EU3 era where factually China and the Mughal Empire. The major PLAYERS (ie, those who CHANGED the world) during that era are the Western Europeans. The Asian powers were by and large in an era of stagnation.

to whoever asked me why Russia had such huge provinces - simply, because Russia had nowhere near the population density or economic development of the western European power. If Russia had the same province size as, say, France (or even Spain), they would be utterly crippled economically and unable to do *ANYTHING* in the game, because they would have literally thousands of 1- and 0- taxes province that give them NOTHING economically, yet costs them stability-wise.

 

[Tunch Khan]

Considering the amount of sales to people in UK+France+Spain dwarfs the entire balkan area by a factor of multiple thousands to nill, then the interest in the West compared to the East will be 100,000 more important to us.

Yet another divine example of how the winners are rewriting the history. At least Johan has the Paradoxian immunity to do whatever he pleases so. As long as he keeps the games coming and open to modding, I don't mind how the provinces are named or designed.

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

But, but, eastern europe is just cooler. Especially during the time period we're looking at.

 

[Mad King James]

Oh dont be so bloody deliberatly obtus.

Take a eastern european two province nation. That nation's economy is divided between teh two provinces along with Manpower. The nations stability costs and technologies cost are based on the two provinces. IF paradox took this same geographic area and split it up into 7 provinces you would have a much WEAKER nation than if it was just two priovinces.

It would cost more to upgrade all provice. It would cost more for stability more chance at rebellions. Technology costs are greater now. the economic strength of this nation would be the same as a two province nation or a 7 province nation because if its based on 7 provinces they would divide the same economic value of said nation between teh 7 provinces than if they divided it between 2 provinces. So you dont GAIN anything from more provinces.

So what we are saying is a nation that is currently divided up into two provinces has a lot more advantages than if that same nation had a different map that divided up its territory into 7 provinces. So you are NOT being short changed game play wise with fewer provinces. You may not be gaining as detailed peace treaties and negotiations but you gain other benifits in economic and techological management along with greater stability.

so STOP complaining.

Actually the number of provinces does affect how well a country does, because the more provinces you have the more provinces must be seiged, the more provinces need to be captured to achieve total victory, the more provinces your military forces can fall back to and rebuild their army. Also, if you're more than one province, you can't be annexed in one war.

Also in EU2, the way the AI built its armies, more provinces meant more troops faster for the AI, which directly correlated with better performance, but hopefully the EU3 AI isn't so stupid as the EU2 one.

And so while more provinces won't neccisarily make you richer or your techspeed better, but it DOES make it more likely that you will survive a war even if you lose. German and Balkan minors with only 1 or 2 more provinces have a DRAMATICALLY increased rate of survival, because they could fall back and rebuild their forces, while if they only had one province they can't build any troops while it's under seige.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

Considering the amount of sales to people in UK+France+Spain dwarfs the entire balkan area by a factor of multiple thousands to nill, then the interest in the West compared to the East will be 100,000 more important to us.

This line of thought assumes that the people who buy the game play mostly in their respective regions. I bought my copy from Germany, but rarely play in Western Europe. I am sure there are many others like me.

I agree with the view that the provinces should be designed in a way to make national border changes historically accurate. I don't care much about the number of the provinces, but it is nice to have a balance rather than a lot in France and very few in China.

It is also true that Western European lands were not leading world powers during most of the EUIII period (Ottomans, Persia, Mughals, China and later Russia were all quite big and powerful) which makes that line of argument invalid.

The other argument 'more things were happening in Western Europe' is better.

 

[Mad King James]

The point that must be addressed to western-centric thinking is that the game may not be as fun if the main challenges to western Europe in the east are ahistorically weak. This was a big fault in EU2, the Ottomans and Russians were very, very weak and poor, and big underperformers, and never a threat to the nations that were historically terrified of them.

It's no fun playing as Venice if you can just push the Ottomans over and they'll just collapse as though on cue. Where's the challenge in that? There's no glory in winning at Lepanto if the Ottomans have 2 rowboats and a donkey.

 

[ZhugeKongming]

Eastern Europe should be more accurate and detailed for one reason, which is the only one that matters: it would be more fun. One of the great things about EUII is that you can play as countries all over the world. I would hate to see the rest of the world abstracted as a series of effects or colonial speedbumps for Western Europe, or even just have less attention paid to it because it's relatively less important.

That said, basing your decision to buy this game on petty nationalism is nothing short of ludicrous, especially when we know it will be very moddable.

 

[Evie HJ]

I don't imagine the game lagging because of all those additional provinces in Eastern Europe to be very *fun*, you know.

IF it is possible to add extra provinces without affecting performance, then yes. But then, there are areas that needed the extra provinces (Asia for a start) a whole lot more than Eastern Europe.

Which isn't to say EE should get nothing, and they aren't getting nothing - there are more provinces in Eastern Europe now than in EU II. But Eastern Europe should only get more provinces if there are enough new provinces to go around - not at the expanse of other regions.

(Well, EXCEPT Eastern Siberia, which had far too many in EU II)

 

[rado907]

imo since the game is in the age of enlightenment it's perfectly natural western europe should be the most detailed place.

 

[ZhugeKongming]

I don't imagine the game lagging because of all those additional provinces in Eastern Europe to be very *fun*, you know.

I think it's a bit premature to say the game will be lagged to hell just because of a couple dozen more provinces. Remember, this is an entirely new engine. We have no idea how additional provinces are going to affect game speed.

 

[Evie HJ]

One would imagine the Paradox people did take that in consideration.

Probably on a very solid computer, it wouldn't make one lick of difference. But it might drive the system requirement up a bit, make the game significantly slower on borderlines system - and that's a whole other segment of the player base that would whine instead.

As Mr T said - they went for the best meld of gameplay balance and system requirements they could manage.