Historical development

[Norgesvenn]

As computer games seem to grow more complex and deeper, the scope of the games also grows.
Who would have imagined a game like EU just five years ago? Not me, that's for sure. I thought SimCity 2000 and Doom were rather unique...

However much I am looking forward to EU 2, I can't help wanting an even longer time-span in the game.
Like, from the break-up of Charlemagne's empire. Europe was under siege at that time, with Moors pouring into Europe through the Iberian peninsula and some unpleasant visits from the hordes from the great steppes in the East of Europe.

A game spanning from about 800-900 until, say... 1850... or something would be fantastic. And, surely, the EU game engine would allow it. Personally, I'd love to play as Norway, wreaking havoc along the coasts of England and France, discovering Iceland and Vinland and so forth. That Black Plague is a pain in the bum, though.

Well... it's just a hope, a wish. Not even a request... but how would you people feel about it? The History of Europe brought to life on your computer...

 

[unmerged(589)]

The only problem with a long timespan is that things get more and more Civ-like the longer it is. Personally I would love to see games that focus on some narrower time period, like the Thirty Years War for instance, and which could be much more detailed and realistic.

 

[Dark Knight]

It would be nice to have a Middle Ages game next, but this game should focus entirely on the Middle Ages, not try to combine them with the EU era.

 

[ShrineGuard]

When the game gets longer, it's impossible to keep with history. The first 100-200 years might be similar to real history, then when you had done whatever, the history would end...Imagine if you took control of the turks and created a united Muslim empire around the Med...A LOT of history totally gone. It would be pretty pointless, IMHO.

 

[unmerged(5199)]

Yeah, but isn't that part of the fun? Changing history? Whats the point of playing a game if you are bound to history somehow.

I would also like to take control of the proud pre-plague Norwegian Empire and expand it, changing history.

But...I get the impression that you guys are sort of stuck up when it comes to changing history...oh well.

 

[Yasko]

Personally i like to change the history, but only when i do it. I think thats the biggest problem, when you play france and annex England you like it, but when Russia annexes Sweden or Turkey takes whole Italy, it feels unhistorical.......

I want the rest of the countries keep the historical developement while i change the history .

 

[unmerged(739)]

Yeah what about a 100 Years War Game? Awesome !!! You've got Dukes getting assasinated all over the place, free companies looting the countryside, French knights and English Longbows !!! You could play as France, Burgundy or England or maybe an outside power like Castille, Aragon or Austria trying to profit from the war!!!

 

[cthulhu]

Originally posted by Yasko
I want the rest of the countries keep the historical developement while i change the history .

I feel exactly the same. It's a bit stupid though. I can get upset when I get dynastic inheritance on some completely "unsuitable" country.

 

[unmerged(5372)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
It would be nice to have a Middle Ages game next, but this game should focus entirely on the Middle Ages, not try to combine them with the EU era.

Yep, mee too, starting at about 700 and ending about 1600..

Rqegrds,

Witte de With

 

[unmerged(4955)]

Originally posted by ShrineGuard
When the game gets longer, it's impossible to keep with history. The first 100-200 years might be similar to real history, then when you had done whatever, the history would end...Imagine if you took control of the turks and created a united Muslim empire around the Med...A LOT of history totally gone. It would be pretty pointless, IMHO.

Hehe, agreed.

Kosovo in the kingdom of Tuscany? Austria controling Ingermarland? Hansastadt Lübeck in the hands of the Turks?

I had all of those and more, achived by AI only, without my aid

McHrozni

 

[unmerged(994)]

The question is not whether Thurnigen can control Morea or Wallachia Jordan (AI results in my current game), but it covers the main events at the beginning of modern history: Reformation, great discoveries and scientific innovation in the renaissance. All the great historical movements are carved in these events, and they are dircetly linked to the general european situation in the late 1400's. With this I don't mean that it makes any difference who controls Burgundy of whether Sweden is attached to the Kalmar Union or not, but it is quite difficult to imagine Martin Luther if the mediterranean is a turkish lake, or the great discoveries if mongols are at the doors. So, there are some points in general history that can't be feasible if you start too early and can change the general course of things, say, from 800 AD.

 

[el freako]

My 'dream' game would go from the fall of Constantinople in 1453 (?) to the end of the second world war 500 years later, this would cover the rise and fall of european power.

 

[ShrineGuard]

That would be intresting...I can just see WWI and WWII in a EU setting . Thing with this long timeframe is...How would germany manage to unify, then go on and fight a world war or two? I mean, mabye that late, France would have taken over most of Germany or something.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by Yasko
Personally i like to change the history, but only when i do it. I think thats the biggest problem, when you play france and annex England you like it, but when Russia annexes Sweden or Turkey takes whole Italy, it feels unhistorical.......

I want the rest of the countries keep the historical developement while i change the history .

... while I quite enjoy the surprises that EU throws at me! I think it is very cool that every once in a while, Navarra will end up winning itself an Italian province, or perhaps a French/Spanish province or two... not historically accurate? Well, I'm more interested in what *could* have happened and *might* have happened as opposed to strictly what *did* happen... and I don't want to be the only factor involved that is making the changes occur.

 

[ShrineGuard]

All you people who claim to like total historical accuracy are just hiding their deep burning need to conquer the world with every nation in the game

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by ShrineGuard
That would be intresting...I can just see WWI and WWII in a EU setting . Thing with this long timeframe is...How would germany manage to unify, then go on and fight a world war or two? I mean, mabye that late, France would have taken over most of Germany or something.

Maybe it would. The point about "historical accuracy" is to model historical forces, not specific historical events. Maybe France would take over all of Germany, Fascism would come to power in England (since England was the losing power in the Great War), and the European Union would be based in Warsaw as a bastion against the Communist States of America. None of that is "historically inaccurate" given an early enough starting premise and following strictly historically-sensible trends.

As for the two-millenium game that models history as well as - or better than - EU does, we probably will get it one day but it's at least a couple of years away yet. After all, five years ago we would have said a game as good as EU was flatly impossible

 

[Norgesvenn]

Glad to have stirred some emotions here...

 

[cthulhu]

Originally posted by ShrineGuard
All you people who claim to like total historical accuracy are just hiding their deep burning need to conquer the world with every nation in the game

Damn I've been found out!

 

[unmerged(5639)]

Vikings

Originally posted by WittedeWith


Yep, mee too, starting at about 700 and ending about 1600..

Rqegrds,

Witte de With

Yes! And the vikings "trade" the EU

 

[Endre Fodstad]

This discussion has appeared in diverse forms throughout the forums several times. Though I agree a "Mega-EU" would be a great thing, the weaknesses of modelling too long a time period have frequently been pointed out. I fear that too retain any semblance of historical accuracy, historical games must cover a limited time period. I am highly sceptical over extending the EU2 time period back to 1419...especially concering the futures of France(divided), Turkey(small),Spain(doesn't exist) and Russia(oh, you mean the itty-bitty principality of Muscowy?). An event-driven historical game engine can get things "back on track", but they can also be silly late in the game. Not much point building the Versailles in France when money is desperately needed in the wars against the might of Imperial England (this example is taken from a round of the board game, which usually is much closer to history than the CG).

What I'm really looking forward to is a medieval game attempting historical accuracy. Damn those dirty, unhygienic, witch-burning "reneissance men" of the 15 and 1600s!

EF