historical monarchs

[unmerged(7313)]

From the features, official page:

Have more than a thousand historical leaders and over 4000 historical Monarchs at your disposal.

Frankly, I was hoping for randomized leaders, as historical are too deterministic for my liking.

Examples:

Istvan Bathory, duke of Siebenburgen, at some point leaves to become king of Poland: But what if Siebenburgen is a huge empire, and Poland is an one-province minor? He leaves anyway. Stupid Istvan.

Stuarts in English throne: What if Scotland is annexed by anybody before the death of Queen Elisabeth? It isn't likely that english nobility would give the crown to deposed royalty.

Hapsburgs everywhere: They got all sorts of kingdoms to rule. Would they if Austria was crushed in the middle of XVth century? Or if the P-L Commonwealth was a tad stronger at the beginning of XVIth century, would Jagiellonians give up Bohemia and Hungary so easily?

... and many others...

Since we can have completely unhistorical situation few years into game, why are we stuck with historical guys?

 

[unmerged(5822)]

It's not impossible that it's a reference to the setup files.
I'd prefer "random" rulers as well.

 

[Powerslave]

I would have prefered random leaders and monarchs myself for the same reasons as you. In EU2 especially playing MP there are certain times when you don't go to war yet because you know that in a decade or so you get some nifty leaders that will almost guarantee you to win the war.

 

[Skarion]

I want my historical monarchs!

 

[Registered]

I want my historical monarchs!

And we'll get them

 

[stnylan]

I am also glad it's historical monarchs/leaders.

 

[Nikolai]

I want historical monarchs if the conditions are right.

 

[Pirate Z]

You could have a rotation with chance calculations for the apperance of historical figures, as in MTW.

 

[unmerged(54425)]

Making leaders and monarchs random would also kill huge amount of events, thus making the game boring.

 

[Jayavarman]

I am on the fence in regards to historical monarchs. I was, however, looking forward to creating dynastic conflicts with succession wars and all.

 

[unmerged(24952)]

I realy hope they stay with the historical leaders,
playing sweden without the underpowered kings would not be eu3!

 

[Alex Gariepy]

"I want my historical leaders!"
"No, it's too rigid!"
"I want my random leaders!"
"No, it's too ahistorical!"

Why can't we have the ability to have both?

 

[unmerged(11600)]

Making leaders and monarchs random would also kill huge amount of events, thus making the game boring.

Only because PE chose to attach events to particular monarchs (and, at least in EU1, if you save and reload the game, any future events for the current monarchs are lost IIUC). In the board game, random monarchs (although not leaders) were the standard while historical monarchs were an optional rule. For myself (see my title) I'd like random monarchs to at least be an option, as I find games more fun if I don't know exactly what's coming up. I want to understand the rules and the probabilities, not the script.

-Pat
edit: It would also fix some strange history: in my first AAR Henry VIII died early, leaving a regency until his unborn son with a wife he hadn't yet met could be old enough to take the throne.

 

[Gwalcmai]

"I want my historical leaders!"
"No, it's too rigid!"
"I want my random leaders!"
"No, it's too ahistorical!"

Why can't we have the ability to have both?

It would be rather easy, even. Have the game come up with random people when there is no historical data (like in those cases where your monarch file ran out because your country was supposed to disappear). If anyone wants to play using strictly random people, they'd just need to remove the historical data files from the loading process (something which could easily be toggled, I'd think).

 

[Gebhard Blucher]

I've been pretty "ho hum" about Paradox games while they are in development. Wasn't particularly interested in EU2, Victoria, HoI2, Crusader Kings, or Diplomacy before release (the rest are n/a). Played the heck out of just about all of them once they were out though, besides HoI2 (still sitting on my shelf) and Diplomacy (not really my kind of game).

However I'm having a really hard time not getting excited about EU3 for some reason. Don't wanna get worked up in case I build expectations too high. Not even screenshots of the graphics from rough alpha build can dampen my enthusiasm any. Something is wrong with me. Heh.

P.S. I laughed out loud when I saw that screenshot from Empire Deluxe. I remember thinking Empire Deluxe II (with the map builder) was just so cool way back in the day. One of my friends and I used to sit around making scenarios for it, which were totally inappropriate for that game. We'd pull out miniature wargame OOBs for the Battle of Waterloo & co., and try to convert them to Empire Deluxe II. Man I was such a dork back then...on second thought, maybe I still am.

EDIT: Wow, I'm a retard. I posted this in the wrong thread. :wacko:

 

[Duuk]

"I want my historical leaders!"
"No, it's too rigid!"
"I want my random leaders!"
"No, it's too ahistorical!"

Why can't we have the ability to have both?

I agree. I want historical monarch and leader files setup, but with "optional" deviations. IE: restoration of dynasties that historically didn't survive.

 

[Duuk]

P.S. I laughed out loud when I saw that screenshot from Empire Deluxe. I remember thinking Empire Deluxe II (with the map builder) was just so cool way back in the day. One of my friends and I used to sit around making scenarios for it, which were totally inappropriate for that game. We'd pull out miniature wargame OOBs for the Battle of Waterloo & co., and try to convert them to Empire Deluxe II. Man I was such a dork back then...on second thought, maybe I still am.

Google is a terrible, terrible tool in the hands of a sarcastic bastard like me. "Empire" was the first "original DOS 4x game" that popped into my mind when I saw people complaining about the graphics.

Worst part: I'll probably download that "new" version of Empire and play it relentlessly now. I *still* load up Command:HQ at least once a month and beat the snot out of General Win Moore or Mars God of War

 

[State Machine]

Given the *brand* of EU1/2, I would be amazed if EU3 was not historicity based - ie of having the historical figures and such prominent. Of the many Paradox titles, only CK strayed from historicity as a predominent factor.

That said, EU3 needs to both be true to its past, as well as having features that really go in new directions. So, who knows?

 

[George LeS]

From past experience with the EU series, plus what Johan has said about modding whatever our hearts desire, I expect we'll have historical monarchs, but with maybe many more options for alternative lines. Also, I think there are about 3700 monarchs in EU2, so, taking into account 50 years dropped, that'll mean about 400 more monarchs to play with. (I also count 805 leaders, so ... ).

 

[crusaderknight]

The one problem I really have with historical monarchs is this:

Lets say country A is annexed during the reign of King John I. Then, eighty years later, country A resurfaces under the reign of King John IV! That really doesn't make sense.

IMO, all countries should have their historical monarchs until they are annexed. Then, if they resurface, they should have random monarchs. Also, the random monarchs file should be improved. I hate how random monarchs are always just one name, and its usually a LAST name, not a first name. I would rather have Gotland's random monarchs appear as "Johann I" or "Svend III" etc. rather than "Tonder" or "Eirikson" etc.

- Crusaderknight