-
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.
Quite frankly it would a bad thing if we WEREN'T allowed to talk about the Home of the Underdogs site here - it was the first place I ever saw a review of EU1, months before it's UK release. And I wished I had decided to buy it on the basis of that, instead of the rubbish magazine review I read, which delayed my purchase of the game by a couple of months.
I can understand fears that a "more Imperialsm like" economy model would make the game unweildy. To be sure, I mearly bring it up as a rough idea, i don't mean transplanting the exact same model. What I do like is the added dimension that individual resources give to the importance of territories and international trade.
I would be interesting however to see a game using the EUII engine which DID focus on economics as Imperialism did. Don't get me wrong here, i LOVE EUII and am very happy with it. I just think that the people at Paradox have a sort of golden touch with these things. Perhaps something starting around 1700 or 1740 or so, lasting until 1991(if not 1939 or 1947). Focusing on economics, with capitalism, mercantilism(early on) and later communism, planned economies, etc would make a brilliant game. I realize the paradox people can't do 100 different things at once, but i figure why not at least bring it up.
I would be interesting however to see a game using the EUII engine which DID focus on economics as Imperialism did. Don't get me wrong here, i LOVE EUII and am very happy with it. I just think that the people at Paradox have a sort of golden touch with these things. Perhaps something starting around 1700 or 1740 or so, lasting until 1991(if not 1939 or 1947). Focusing on economics, with capitalism, mercantilism(early on) and later communism, planned economies, etc would make a brilliant game. I realize the paradox people can't do 100 different things at once, but i figure why not at least bring it up.
As far as micromanaging an economic system in EUIII with more than 1 resource per provence, I forsee perhaps 2 more DP sliders. An adjustable focus for economic growth or military growth, and perhaps a focus for domestically desirable resources or resources to be collected and traded.
This could certainly be arranged so that individual resources had meaning in a game sense, but would not NEED to be micromanaged. It would make sense however to ALLOW them to be micromanaged where desired. There could be a default setting for the resource collection of a provence, determined by your DP settings, which could be gradually changed over time, just as the DP settings themselves are arranged with the penalty for changing them being a temporary loss in production.
This could certainly be arranged so that individual resources had meaning in a game sense, but would not NEED to be micromanaged. It would make sense however to ALLOW them to be micromanaged where desired. There could be a default setting for the resource collection of a provence, determined by your DP settings, which could be gradually changed over time, just as the DP settings themselves are arranged with the penalty for changing them being a temporary loss in production.
i agree with you, maybe it could be implemented the 2 or more resources per province. But you MUST bring a good abstraction level to this, because, maybe when you start with a minor, like for example, Brandenburg, you can control all the resources with micromanagement, but let's take Ottoman Empire or China, when you have more than 30 provinces it will become IMPOSIBLE to control, so you will HAVE TO put the AUTOMANAGEMENT ON;
so what's the point of adding a feature that all people will have to turn it off in some point of the game?
EDIT: and i do not want to think what will the game be with Portugal for example, with colonies all around the world....
I should hope so given that it's been mentioned fairly regularly ever since Hartmann wrote an EU I review for the site about two years ago.
The site only allows you to download 'abandonware', which is to say games that are no longer commercially available, and even with these will remove any game from the site if the rights-holder asks. Not remotely piracy.
I think perhaps you misunderstand what i ment by having ability to micro or macro control. Macro control would always be "on", not some feature to turned on or off. When you wish to micro control, go to a particular provence and make adjustments as you see fit.
Let me see if i can create an example.
You control the nation of France. The provence of Orleans produces mostly Grain, but also produces some cloth and some smaller amount of wood. You have just finished the 100 years war and wish to revive your economy and send your traders out to compete in other CoT's. You could direct Orleans to concentrate on cloth at the expense of Grain and wood in order to get yourself established in the markets. This would not be an instantaneous thing, and would not be drastic, perhaps 30% of grain production could be shifted to cloth over 5 years. Your economic DP setting would normally determine what values the resources were normally produced at.
Let me see if i can create an example.
You control the nation of France. The provence of Orleans produces mostly Grain, but also produces some cloth and some smaller amount of wood. You have just finished the 100 years war and wish to revive your economy and send your traders out to compete in other CoT's. You could direct Orleans to concentrate on cloth at the expense of Grain and wood in order to get yourself established in the markets. This would not be an instantaneous thing, and would not be drastic, perhaps 30% of grain production could be shifted to cloth over 5 years. Your economic DP setting would normally determine what values the resources were normally produced at.
ok, but again, think in bigger countries, like Portugal, they control provinces all around the globe before anyone else (in 1450 they have a lot of provinces in europe, south america, africa and asia), how a player playing with portugal can control that and also taking care of the enemies????
Maybe adding some more DP sliders could help to get more management.
The most important thing is that you MUST give people some abstraction and not micromanage everything, if not, the game become boring and uncontralable.
Now i think you are just not reading what i am writting. I give an example of when a player WOULD want to micromanage. Even in my example to option to just let it produce as it would is obvious. One is not forced to make adjustments. If you are satisfied witht he production as is(which would be controlled by DP sliders) then leave it be. I merely offer this as an additional tool.
well, i understand what you have said, now tell me a game in which the AI take care of some tasks and he makes it better than you??? there is one example???
i don't think so....
you always work better than the AI, so you WILL HAVE TO take care of that.
And imagine in a MP campaign...
But, i am not saying this is a bad idea, i am saying that you must be carefull before adding it, because it can ruin the game (like any other bad implemented idea).
Again, perhaps this my fault, a miscommunication. The AI would not be making changes to anything. ALL production would be controlled by the DP sliders, OR microcontrols by the player. The AI would not be issuing micro conrtrols other than something like
growth- - * - - - - - - - stability
growth = 3
provences concentrate more on higher priced goods due to this DP setting.
The AI would not go to some random provence in question and just start changing stuff.
growth- - * - - - - - - - stability
growth = 3
provences concentrate more on higher priced goods due to this DP setting.
The AI would not go to some random provence in question and just start changing stuff.
well, so you say it should remain static until the player touches it.
well, maybe it is a good solution to the problem.
We were both probably thinking the same thing, it just took some hammering out to make it obvious.
Imp I and II were certainly great games on their strong points. Unfortionately, they were fairly lousy on the weak points. Not to say that I don't have and enjoy playing them anyway...
EU certainly has enough things to keep you busy, but improving the economic model is worth some thought.
The thing to keep in mind with Imperialism is that the resource trading is, to a certain extent, a byproduct of resource development which is the heart of the model. Perhaps provinces could have a resouce item as well as a trade item... (Bear with me, I'm just thinking out loud.) and items can be built to improve the local economic and resource infrastructure (as opposed the mostly governmental ones, and in place of Manufactories).
I have to say that the ability to improve your provinces (Tax colectors, et al) feels a bit stunted in EUI/II, even though it is in line with the governmental mechanism focus of the game.
On a slightly different subject....
One thing that EU does fairly well as a byproduct of design is the premise that made Imperialism II stand out from all the other 'colonise the New World' games (most especially Sid Meyer's Colonization). That is the idea that the New World was being exploited purely to aid the mother country's power and influence in the Old World.
Colonization (Microprose ca. 1993) went the opposite route, with the goal of the game being to win a war of independence. Conquest of the New World (Interplay ca. 1995) gives you a distorted view since there is no reference back to the mother country other steadily escalating tax demands. Gold of the Americas (SSG ca. 1987) has more of a give and take, since as long as you meet the king's demands, he'll some aid back over to you (even if it's not what you need ). And *you* never declare independence, independent provinces are out of your control.
EU certainly has enough things to keep you busy, but improving the economic model is worth some thought.
The thing to keep in mind with Imperialism is that the resource trading is, to a certain extent, a byproduct of resource development which is the heart of the model. Perhaps provinces could have a resouce item as well as a trade item... (Bear with me, I'm just thinking out loud.) and items can be built to improve the local economic and resource infrastructure (as opposed the mostly governmental ones, and in place of Manufactories).
I have to say that the ability to improve your provinces (Tax colectors, et al) feels a bit stunted in EUI/II, even though it is in line with the governmental mechanism focus of the game.
On a slightly different subject....
One thing that EU does fairly well as a byproduct of design is the premise that made Imperialism II stand out from all the other 'colonise the New World' games (most especially Sid Meyer's Colonization). That is the idea that the New World was being exploited purely to aid the mother country's power and influence in the Old World.
Colonization (Microprose ca. 1993) went the opposite route, with the goal of the game being to win a war of independence. Conquest of the New World (Interplay ca. 1995) gives you a distorted view since there is no reference back to the mother country other steadily escalating tax demands. Gold of the Americas (SSG ca. 1987) has more of a give and take, since as long as you meet the king's demands, he'll some aid back over to you (even if it's not what you need
). And *you* never declare independence, independent provinces are out of your control.
I like the ideas presented here so far. Economics is one of the things EU is lacking in. (Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this game) Though is reason to be concerned about players trading away non-military rescources like spices, china, coffee, ect. and stockpiling lumber, iron-ore, copper, and grain.
I like the idea of having more fluctuation in markets, and what you have to trade could affect the preformance of your traders. Anybody remember the Machivelli? Maybe something like that could be a springboard.
I like the idea of having more fluctuation in markets, and what you have to trade could affect the preformance of your traders. Anybody remember the Machivelli? Maybe something like that could be a springboard.
Thing I disliked most in Imp: When one country attacked weaker country all others jumped on the weaker one - totally ahistorical, in Europe during that time wars were fought for sake of balance of power. Economic dimension ? Yes EU lacks this. But will our Swedish friends risk more complexity? I will be certainly happy to have new bigger (more provinces!!!) and more complex EU but will such a game sale? Although I hope they are not driven only by profit, but also by ideas.
The worst part of imp AI was that if you landed a force in a major nation the AI moved all it's troops to the capital province, so it was effectively lost.
Perhaps the most tedeous part of Imperialism was the combat resolution. I did not trust the "otto-play" option to do a good enough job of not wasting my forces, so i played most of the battles. This is something i would certainly NOT like EU to try, any sort of tactical control of battles.
Sure, "Otto-Play" isn't as good as you. But you don't have to use it, as long as you're willing to accept that you won't be better that the AI in tactics.
As long as the feature could be turned off, why not have a tactical command option?
As long as the feature could be turned off, why not have a tactical command option?
You misunderstand. Otto-play was in NO WAY better than even the begginer human. I suggest not including the tactical combat mode because it becomes tedeous and boring and pointless over the course of a 400 year game with hundreds of battles.