-
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.
Thanks
This is exactly what I expressed in my post above. There is room for both as two different game experiences.
As of now, I'm a little torn. I understand why Paradox would sell the engine and everything, but I still don't know why it is being made into a marketed game. That aside, if reviews are positive, I could see myself trying this. My first PI game was EU3. Then I fell in love with Vicky/Ricky. Then I tried CK, and liked that too. Going back in time has worked, so I will probably try FTG.
Our order of purchace is almost similar, except that I bought HoI2
D first. Other than that, completely similar.
Good point.
The fact that I'm still playing multiplayer EU2 from time to time even today (7 years after I bought the game) should speak for itself. Even when playing from the laptop (weaker configuration than the main computer), I can fire up the game and play MP in less than 1 minute... which is great in a period in which time is limited...
While I'm envious of some of the things EU3 brought to the equation (governments, NIs, decisions, non-static cores), I wouldn't trade warfare, colonization or COT system. Much, much easier and fun. Plus, the game has the special gift of forcing you to follow a more-or-less historical path: you actually have every interest of disposing of french territories as England or to strike an Iberian alliance as Portugal.
My main issue with EU3 (granted, I've been trying only the demo, but I don't think this was changed in the following versions) is not only the ugly map, but a certain lack of speed: it takes too much too click through the provinces, in order to select and manipulate armies/navies, I don't get the use of the big screen for the city view...
It seems it is just impossible to please everybody with a single game.
Some EU3 players will like this game too, some won't. New players will maybe discover both of them and EU2 players should find features they waited for so long.
Some EU3 players will like this game too, some won't. New players will maybe discover both of them and EU2 players should find features they waited for so long.
YodaMaster, I hope that the FTG-team won't try to please everybody but rather stick to the ideas that have been discussed in the source code thread in the EU2-forum. After all, the FTG team was very clear from the beginning of this project that they wanted to create a EU 2.5 rather than an enhanced EU3 or 4 and that decision got strong support from the EU2 community. Random monarchs, national ideas etc. is certainly fun but it is not those things I miss when I play EU2. As Yoda said earlier, EU2 and EU3 are two different games and I really hope that the FTG-team will keep it that way. And to all the EU3 players that wonder about new features, look in this thread:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=352140
You won't see any final decisions but it gives an idea of which features that many of the EU2 players wanted (and some responses from the FTG-team).
countless ? You hardly need one hand to count them.
They refuse to play EU3 simply because EU2 is much more predictable. This kind of players prefer to play EU as a nice historical documentary with some limited interaction rather than a strategy game.
EU3 on the other hand *is* a strategy game with some, limited, historicity in it.
Yes, we were clear from the beginning and I think I was also clear in the post you quoted.
"This kind of players" does not force you to like this. But it by making EU3 Paradox chose another path than EU and EU2. So I would just say it's almost like those who like CK and those who like EU2. I wouldn't generalize things like you do. We don't simply refuse to play EU3 because EU2 is much more predictable. We all have our own reasons.
Don't agree at all.. it doesn't make it less of a strategy game because it is more predictable. It just means that you as a player have to adapt your strategy to the nation that you are playing as well as to the different circumstances that are caused by events. Just because you know that there will be an event which increases your revoltrisk significantly, doesn't mean you know where the revolts will occur, if a nation will declare war on you so you will have to face both rebels and an external enemy, if a random event will hit you that increase your revoltrisk even more etc.etc. The only predicatble aspects of the game is that nations that would have no chance at becoming colonizers during the timeframe are not likely to succeed in the game either (except if they are controlled by a player).
I just don't see why EU3 would be more of a strategy game just because everything is random...
This is a matter of taste. Things that are irrelevant for some people are really important for some others.
Just to be clear for all, this is not the right place to reopen flamewar between EU2 fans (now possible FTG ones) and EU3 ones. We can discuss differences. There is indeed a different logic ("philosophy") behind each title. Both are "limited" in a way and both are strategy games.
most events are predictable because predetermined, so after a few games the player will already know what will happen. Strategy ? Nay. Adaptation ? Nay. Besides in EU3 you obviously also have to adapt your strategy to the nation that you are playing, or do you play France and Tuscany the same way ? Hard to believe. And to answer your previous post, you can play EU3 without random monarchs, as well.
yeah, like I said there is *limited* interaction in the history documentary that is EU2.
This is rather your personal opinion it seems, I didn't say it. But strategy in EU is when you make decisions to shape your country as you want it to be, in EU2 this is strongly limited, there is only so much you can do and 90% of your choices are just reactions to predermined events.
Someone even came to the point of saying that EU2 warfare is by far better than EU3 ? When it is IMHO one of the most annoying aspects of the old engine that the largest majority of players do not miss at all. In that engine you spend most of your time at war running after retreating armies.
Never wanted this to be a flamewar so this will be my last post regarding this subject.
First of all, I never said that you can't play EU3 without random monarchs I just said that random monarchs are not a feature I miss when I play EU2.
Second, my point is that even if you know something is going to happen it does not mean that you know exactly when or exactly how things will happen (the events have an offset trigger so they do not happen on the exact same date each time). A degree of predictability does not mean that EU2 is not a strategy game (and if it is the events that bothers you, you can just play without them).
And finally:
They refuse to play EU3 simply because EU2 is much more predictable. This kind of players prefer to play EU as a nice historical documentary with some limited interaction rather than a strategy game.
EU3 on the other hand *is* a strategy game with some, limited, historicity in it.
You didn't say that EU3 is more of a strategy game then EU2??? Then what did you mean by this comment???
First of all, I never said that you can't play EU3 without random monarchs I just said that random monarchs are not a feature I miss when I play EU2.
Second, my point is that even if you know something is going to happen it does not mean that you know exactly when or exactly how things will happen (the events have an offset trigger so they do not happen on the exact same date each time). A degree of predictability does not mean that EU2 is not a strategy game (and if it is the events that bothers you, you can just play without them).
And finally:
They refuse to play EU3 simply because EU2 is much more predictable. This kind of players prefer to play EU as a nice historical documentary with some limited interaction rather than a strategy game.
EU3 on the other hand *is* a strategy game with some, limited, historicity in it.
You didn't say that EU3 is more of a strategy game then EU2??? Then what did you mean by this comment???
You just meant it except the random part. Please read my previous moderal intervention very carefully.
Onedreamer said:
Onedreamer said:
I am going to make a question... have you actually played EU2? Because from reading the phrase i quoted in first, it doesnt seem you did. Or at least not enough.
As for the retreating armies - are you actually aware that it is in EU3, not EU2, where you can actually obliterate armies if their morale is at 0, when you pursue them? The AI keeps running after your armies over and over if you retreat, till they obliterate it. They can easily wipe out of the map 30.000 men without killing a single one.
Teodor said:
Just wanted to say that this was a well said post and that i agree 100% with it.