The screenshots are good, but the map of the holy roman empire s pretty unclear. Given that there's no armies on it, maybe the fog of war should be off in that mapmode, as it is in CK when the units are toggled off.
-
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.
Ex Mudder said:
Probably a limit on how he can change his policies, given his government type. A feudal monarchy with full pluratocracy doesn't make much sense.
Well...the issue is that you can continue to access all aspects of play in all mapmodes (which you can't in EU2/CK) so the FOW has to remain. If the FOW was lifted you'd lose some functionality elsewhere. I find that when I'm playing it's very easy (and intuitive) to use the mapmodes -- even with the FOW active -- and that it just took a little getting used to.Reveilled said:
Interestingly, I think EU2 players may take a little longer to learn some parts of the game than newbies will, because there are some interesting changes that will require that you first un-learn some EU2 habits.
My form of government has restrictions on the DP settings I can have. I can move the setting beyond the red arrow, but I suffer a continuous +1RR for each step I am beyond the limit (which makes revolts more likely, and reduces my income from all of my provinces). Generally you would not want to exceed a limit...it's better to consider changing your FOG to one that lets you move to the DP setting you want.Ex Mudder said:
A curious thing, you mentioned that your monarch's stats were Admin 7, Diplo 6, Military 3. But that's not what's shown in the court screenshot. How come?
Mr T. I noticed that you spread your tech research out to 4 different areas, rather than concentrating on one area at a time. In EU2 it would be more beneficial to concentrate on one thing at a time, gaining the benefits of one technology sooner.
Is there now a reason for spreading your research or was it done for roleplaying reasons ?
Is there now a reason for spreading your research or was it done for roleplaying reasons ?
Minor display tweak probably needed. Currently it shows 0 stars for a rating of 3 or less.Registered said:
A bit of both.Rorschach said:
How does one display music? I hope your not suggesting he was painter instead of the composer he was.
Other than this little nitpickery I must say I like this nice informative AAR.
MrT said:Well...the issue is that you can continue to access all aspects of play in all mapmodes (which you can't in EU2/CK) so the FOW has to remain. If the FOW was lifted you'd lose some functionality elsewhere. I find that when I'm playing it's very easy (and intuitive) to use the mapmodes -- even with the FOW active -- and that it just took a little getting used to.
Interestingly, I think EU2 players may take a little longer to learn some parts of the game than newbies will, because there are some interesting changes that will require that you first un-learn some EU2 habits.
Are you at liberty to elabourate on what aspects of the gameplay, other than the use of the military, is affected by the fog of war?
Rather than turning the fog off for certain mapmodes, might it instead have been possible to just allow you to toggle it on and off, and lose those pieces of functionality in the toggling?
Ooops.Barkdreg said:
o I must confess that I'm not familiar with Binchois so I was just explaining his existence/effects with the first thing that came to mind.Not sure I can safely answer that one. Sorry.Reveilled said:
Jesus, I hope this map is still work in progress! I'm not the kind of guy going into much detail about the map, but how could anyone working on 15th-18th century game name one of Polish provinces Lódź?! It was hardly a village back then. And Lublin above Cracow, between it and Mazovia? (I do not even mention Ratibor belonging to Czechs, not Breslau). It's not like you can call it "a mistake" or "a minor issue" to be removed sometime later. It's an absurd equal only to Spiff province in Victoria, and, IMHO, lack of professionalism. I admire you guys and all Paradox games, but please, do not force me to see Lódź in my Renaissance Poland.
Looks good. I can't comment on the maps as that is not my area of expertise. But the look good to me besides any possible inaccurate cartography.
Could you kindly use a different colour than red for the picture captions, as I find it difficult to read against the background.
Could you kindly use a different colour than red for the picture captions, as I find it difficult to read against the background.
Sweet Holy Moses! An EUIII AAR and from MrT no less! It looks great so far, T - very informative in showing the game set up and the various moves, especially to start off (always something to get used to.)
Your writing has not suffered in the previous years either, I might add. Great to see you trudging around these parts again, if only for a little while.
A question regarding the electors - can you tell us if Cologne and Palatinate have any extra influence as they did in EUII? Or are all electors considered equal?
Your writing has not suffered in the previous years either, I might add. Great to see you trudging around these parts again, if only for a little while.
A question regarding the electors - can you tell us if Cologne and Palatinate have any extra influence as they did in EUII? Or are all electors considered equal?
I noticed that the Domestic Policy Sliders are reversed compared to EU2 (IE. Aristocracy is to the left in EU2 and the right in EU3. Just random something )
So there is a reason to not put all your gold into one form of research? Interesting. Why exactly? Is it a diminishing returns system or what?
*sigh* does that mean that if you start a grand campaign you can't get say, Rossseau or Voltaire?
Even if they'd have random stats, that would really *suck*.
)So there is a reason to not put all your gold into one form of research? Interesting. Why exactly? Is it a diminishing returns system or what?
*sigh* does that mean that if you start a grand campaign you can't get say, Rossseau or Voltaire?
Even if they'd have random stats, that would really *suck*.
My understanding is it's dynamic. NOTHING - rulers, leaders, and I suppose artisans/philosophers et.al. is guaranteed after the start date.
A great start! I enjoyed it very much!
A great start! I enjoyed it very much!
Ah...sure. I'll change it to use gold text instead. EDIT: I'll need an AAR mod to change the text colour in the existing post though.J. Passepartout said:
Thanks. I'm a bit rusty at AAR-writing, but it will come back with time and effort.coz1 said:
Re the question: HRE elections are quite different from EU2. Each of the 7 electors votes, with each vote being equal. Tie-breaker system is somewhat complex so I won't detail it here. Mostly has to do with prestige and power.
Something like that.Arilou said:
New advisors are generated in the same way generals and monarchs are generated: randomly. You can look at that as a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your general outlook on non-predeterminism. Personally, I like it since it's a bit silly to know that Kick Ass Advisor X will appear in Y province on Z date so I'd better make sure I've conquered it by then so I get him...Arilou said:
Last edited:
MrT said:
shame that. It might have been a bit ore predictable and exploitative (completely up to the player IMO) but it would having Newton or Da Vinci at your court would ahev had a lot more flavour then Random guys X Y and Z.
I *like* that. It adds an extra layer of strategy, and more importantly, historical immersion.
But that's not that important: I'm not arguing that Voltaire will be a skill 12 philospher or whatever every time he appears, just wondering if the names or portraits will be used at all.
An entire universe full of generic advisors seem boring to me. Especially as no matter how large your database of names are you'll run out of them sooner or later.
EDIT: Especially annoying because the advertising blurbs said stuff like "Employ advisors like Leonardo Da Vinci!" which would be kind of pointless if the only way to actuall do that is to start the exact date he started painting....
The map accuracy is simply bad, in some pretty significant cases here.J. Passepartout said: