• 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.

Fire_Unionist

Colonel
21 Badges
Jul 6, 2008
852
3.562
  • Prison Architect
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II
Forgive me if I'm horribly misguided, but I'm not sure what the point of FTG is. From what I've seen, it seems like a more modern version of EU2, or an "EU2 expansion" as somebody put it. As someone who's never played EU2, and only played EU3 (usually with Magna Mundi), if you were in my position, would you consider buying this when it's out or not waste your time and simply skip it? I've heard this will be far more similar to EU2 than EU3, and that EU3 and EU2 are radically different. Having not played EU2, of course I have no idea how.
 
From a perspective of a long-time EU2 player, FTG is going to be a much upgraded EU2. The main differences between EU2 and 3 are: non-random, nation-specific monarchs, leaders and historical events, 2D graphics, a few less features (NIs, for instance). FTG and EU3 are going to be radically different, as far as I know, although, judging from what has been said in the EU2 source code thread during the last year or so, some EU3 elements are going to be implemented.

It is always worthy of buying - it's probably going to be quite cheapm at the same time being itself a very good game. FTG is to incorporate AGCEEP into EU2 - which is like incorporating Magna Mundi into EU3, only more historical.

Of course, it's just some non-detailed info. Better wait for one of the developers to answer more correctly. :)
 
I would say it will be worth buying. If you're a big fan of EUIII then you should like EUII. FTG will be a better version of EUII (will have to wait to find out in what ways exactly). It may not surpass EUIII for you but the presumably low price tag will make it worth spending a bit of money and a bit of time on.
 
Thanks for responding. The problem is that, since I already have EU3, what would be the point of FTG (like EU2)? Wouldn't that be a downgrade? I enjoy EU3, but to be honest, I only play it with Magna Mundi and dislike the vanilla game.
 
As someone who's never played EU2, and only played EU3 (usually with Magna Mundi), if you were in my position, would you consider buying this when it's out or not waste your time and simply skip it? I've heard this will be far more similar to EU2 than EU3, and that EU3 and EU2 are radically different. Having not played EU2, of course I have no idea how.

I gather that EU2, particularly with the AGCEEP mod, is much more historically-driven than EU3. So you get far, far more events which are based on historical fact firing, and giving you various options which might or might not end up giving historical outcomes.

This is a totally different approach from EU3. Paradox's philosophy these days seems to be to aim for game mechanics that reflect the historical situation that events are only there for flavour, not to shape the game..

edit: If you like Magna Mundi because it's "more historical" then this revised EU2 might be just what you want.
 
Thanks for responding. The problem is that, since I already have EU3, what would be the point of FTG (like EU2)? Wouldn't that be a downgrade? I enjoy EU3, but to be honest, I only play it with Magna Mundi and dislike the vanilla game.

Even if you own EU3, buying EU2 would be a good option, and by no means a "downgrade". Dont let the numbers fool you.

EU2 beats EU3 in countless areas, even if the latest with all expansions got some cool features.
 
EU2 beats EU3 in countless areas, even if the latest with all expansions got some cool features.
Other than more historical events, (which I appreciate) what exactly does it have? I know there are a lot of EU2 players who refuse to play EU3.
 
for me its just the whole feeling of eu2, and ofc the eu3 graphics were not my kind of style.

note that i only played the eu3 demo;)
 
Other than more historical events, (which I appreciate) what exactly does it have? I know there are a lot of EU2 players who refuse to play EU3.

EUII has a much better 'feel' to it. It's a bit wishy washy and and a bit hard to put one's finger on but it has it. I think it actually has to do with the game being less dynamic and more hard coded. It means that not every nation plays the same once it gets to a certain size. You can play the Ottomans and it feels very different from Mamluks or Persia. In EUIII I find that after ~100 years they all feel more or less the same, not identical but close enough.
 
Other than more historical events, (which I appreciate) what exactly does it have? I know there are a lot of EU2 players who refuse to play EU3.

A map that looks like a real map.

A game that can be easily played from an older computer.

Historical atmosphere

Of course, I would hope that this new version of my favourite game in history manages to be something more than a "moddder-friendly tool"... I would like to see some nice things implemented from EU3 (with the exception of the map, of course)...
 
Forgive me if I'm horribly misguided, but I'm not sure what the point of FTG is. From what I've seen, it seems like a more modern version of EU2, or an "EU2 expansion" as somebody put it. As someone who's never played EU2, and only played EU3 (usually with Magna Mundi), if you were in my position, would you consider buying this when it's out or not waste your time and simply skip it? I've heard this will be far more similar to EU2 than EU3, and that EU3 and EU2 are radically different. Having not played EU2, of course I have no idea how.

What made EU2-AGCEEP different to what I read EU3 was, was the amount of massive detail. History will not unfold randomly with Sweden suddenly inheriting France or somestuff. You'll have an actual 100 years war which will mostly end with France throwing England out - unless the player alters. Suleyman the Magnificent will actually conquer Hungary around 1510, unless you as a player skillfully prevent it. Poland will become weaker in 17th-18th centuries and end up divided, unless a player beats history and prevails against Frederik II and Catherine the Great.

English conquistadores will actually try to found colonies in North America and expand them with superior navy and skilled leaders. Then, one day, these colonies are actually going to revolt against them. You may be playing Portugal all the time from 1419, and suddenly will notice that United States declared independence from England in 1770s - that is, unless you got in the way.

This is what made playing AGCEEP very special to me. A game of vanilla EU2 normally would see the big white blob conquer much of central Europe, France conquer half italy and the other half of Germany, Russia never beat the Golden Horde, not to speak of conquering Siberia. AI Portugal would never show any presence in the Indies - which would make a game as Oman bland, without the competition. With AGCEEP, you could get the feeling you actually were inside history, altering it.
 
What made EU2-AGCEEP different to what I read EU3 was, was the amount of massive detail. History will not unfold randomly with Sweden suddenly inheriting France or somestuff. You'll have an actual 100 years war which will mostly end with France throwing England out - unless the player alters. Suleyman the Magnificent will actually conquer Hungary around 1510, unless you as a player skillfully prevent it. Poland will become weaker in 17th-18th centuries and end up divided, unless a player beats history and prevails against Frederik II and Catherine the Great.

English conquistadores will actually try to found colonies in North America and expand them with superior navy and skilled leaders. Then, one day, these colonies are actually going to revolt against them. You may be playing Portugal all the time from 1419, and suddenly will notice that United States declared independence from England in 1770s - that is, unless you got in the way.
So it's kind of like what VIP is to Victoria, right? That sounds good to me and I now know that I'll be keeping a close eye on this. I liked the historical scenarios you described as well. However, what if I make the game go ahistorical- let's say as England in the 100 yrs. war. Would that not affect other events in the future to make them ahistorical, like a line of dominoes?
 
However, what if I make the game go ahistorical- let's say as England in the 100 yrs. war. Would that not affect other events in the future to make them ahistorical, like a line of dominoes?

It's a constantly evolving process, which is why the mod project is still going on so many years later. Trying to come up with the appropriate triggers so you don't get off kilter events and in the case of several "major" nations, trying to come up sequences that account for changes that may have occurred (so a French Wars of Religion sequence that takes into account France's religion and then models the appropriate opponents based on your religious background). So we try to anticipate what could commonly happen but then also where appropriate try to gently nudge nations towards our timeline (so an England that takes France might find itself with a lot of revolts that might lead to France reforming).
 
So it's kind of like what VIP is to Victoria, right? That sounds good to me and I now know that I'll be keeping a close eye on this. I liked the historical scenarios you described as well. However, what if I make the game go ahistorical- let's say as England in the 100 yrs. war. Would that not affect other events in the future to make them ahistorical, like a line of dominoes?

I'll give an example.

Lithuania is locked in a life or death struggle with Muscovy which it will lose in a couple of centuries, being annexed into Poland.

Now, if you are an able Lithuania player, you might beat Muscovy, and conquer it, eliminating the threat once and for all time to come. Now what?

Since 95% of your subjects are orthodox Russians now, you will get an event that allows you to go orthodox, form Russia, and move to Muscovy. Then, your western provinces will grow unruly and you will get a choice to either hold on to them, or let them defect to Poland and start colonizing Siberia - which is more "worth it" on the long run.

Then, if Poland is suddenly destroyed too early, and a related country like Pommerania or Lithuania holds the relevant provinces, they can claim the throne of Poland for themselves and there Poland is, alive and kicking, doing what it historically did.

If the Dauphin failed on his quest and Burgundy holds Paris, they may choose to become a new France, so that there is a Napoleon 350 years later. If Italy was united by Milan, this Napoleon will interact with this Italy.

One can't foresee all the outcomes, but many do have historic reactions to them.
 
English conquistadores will actually try to found colonies in North America and expand them with superior navy and skilled leaders. Then, one day, these colonies are actually going to revolt against them. You may be playing Portugal all the time from 1419, and suddenly will notice that United States declared independence from England in 1770s - that is, unless you got in the way.
First, I'd like to thank every one for helping me with this, but I still have one question, related to what I quoted. I would, for example, like it if there was a tendency for all this to happen, instead of it being absolute, only affected by the player. For instance, I would assume there are ways to prevent the USA as GBR, but also that it would not always happen, even if I was uninvolved, it might get boring to see the same world over and over except for what I myself influenced. Also, are the colonial rebellions (USA) restricted to British North America or would they also affect, say-Portugal in Brasil, had Portugal not been taking steps to prevent it. Regardless, It does look like quite an interesting game.
 
To me what's appealing in EU2 is

a) that it has a much better feel than EU3, graphics-wise;
b) that it is much faster;
c) its historical accuracy;
d) that colonization feels more realistic (also due to c).

I haven't played it much though, but I welcome this project and will surely give it a go. The extended modding possibilities mean that an immense game can come out of this. The old engine has several serious limitations. I really look forward to see how this "expansion" turns out.
 
First, I'd like to thank every one for helping me with this, but I still have one question, related to what I quoted. I would, for example, like it if there was a tendency for all this to happen, instead of it being absolute, only affected by the player. For instance, I would assume there are ways to prevent the USA as GBR, but also that it would not always happen, even if I was uninvolved, it might get boring to see the same world over and over except for what I myself influenced. Also, are the colonial rebellions (USA) restricted to British North America or would they also affect, say-Portugal in Brasil, had Portugal not been taking steps to prevent it. Regardless, It does look like quite an interesting game.

More of a tendency thing. We tried to guide the AI in the right direction but that won't always result in a historical outcome. Additionally, many events like the American Independence sequence, have points where the AI might diverge and the USA will never form or will form and fail.
 
Other than more historical events, (which I appreciate) what exactly does it have? I know there are a lot of EU2 players who refuse to play EU3.

Countless little things which are hard to explain but which improve gameplay a lot in my view. Warfare in EU3 is absolutely crap in my view - in countless manners, being one of the most important features keeping me in the foreseen future from multiplayer. The graphics, another thing - although i got a quad core and am currently playing in a duo core, the graphics look horrible in my opinion.

Like i said there are so many "little things", that makes explaining rather hard. But generally speaking, i actually like a game where skill plays the most important role, and where a player is not so limited due to the game engine. Most single players might hardly notice any diference between EU2 and EU3, and even claim that EU3 is actually better then EU2, but online, EU2 beats EU3, badly. And that is the most important part in my opinion.

EU3 is still a good game in my opinion - far better now, then when it came out - and got a lot of cool features like i stated, but mostly only in the economic part of the game. But military wise, the game definetely needs improvement. And although EU2's warfare is more simple, it is also better.
 
From a perspective of a long-time EU2 player, FTG is going to be a much upgraded EU2. The main differences between EU2 and 3 are: non-random, nation-specific monarchs, leaders and historical events, 2D graphics, a few less features (NIs, for instance). FTG and EU3 are going to be radically different, as far as I know, although, judging from what has been said in the EU2 source code thread during the last year or so, some EU3 elements are going to be implemented.

It is always worthy of buying - it's probably going to be quite cheapm at the same time being itself a very good game. FTG is to incorporate AGCEEP into EU2 - which is like incorporating Magna Mundi into EU3, only more historical.

Of course, it's just some non-detailed info. Better wait for one of the developers to answer more correctly. :)
Good point!

In few words: same timeframe, two different games for different play styles and not necessarily different players.

A map that looks like a real map.

A game that can be easily played from an older computer.

Historical atmosphere

Of course, I would hope that this new version of my favourite game in history manages to be something more than a "moddder-friendly tool"... I would like to see some nice things implemented from EU3 (with the exception of the map, of course)...
Yes to all. "Moddder-friendly tool" was "just" mandatory for the evolution of all existing and supported EU2 mods and not only AGCEEP. We knew what was "missing" for them and mods are the key for a succesful and very enjoyable game.

Players will also find extended features that were "missing" too. Support of all resolutions including wide screens was the first obvious one. Wait for details in dev diaries!

Moreover many very good ideas were expressed but we had to make choices for this version and many weren't implemented. We will be able to discuss them with the community now. Not sure how Paradox will publish future evolutions but step by step free patches could be the best way.