historical monarchs

[George LeS]

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

But there are cases where historical monarchs make sense for resurrected countries. What if the Jacobites manage to break Scotland away, they'd have the Stuart kings, right? It'd look silly to have another Malcolm or Duncan, instead of James III.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

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?

Yes, i would have been shocked had they gone as far as CK, but i don't think they should go to the more historical straight-jacketing approach used in HOI1/2

 

[Skarion]

Yes, i would have been shocked had they gone as far as CK, but i don't think they should go to the more historical straight-jacketing approach used in HOI1/2

I like the way HoI/HoI2 is

Just some more historical and ahistorical events and I would be happy.

 

[Quift]

Linky

This problem is adressed here. Give my your thoughts on this.

 

[Ulyanov]

I want my historical monarchs!

Hear hear!

The more historical, the better. That is what makes Paradox-games so unique!

Everytime I hear suggestions about forsaking historical aspects of a game for "gameplay reasons", my deepest soul weeps...

 

[Gwalcmai]

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.- Crusaderknight

Yes it does, John II and John III ruled in exile. "I am king of Scotland, even if the bastard English took my crown from me!"

 

[Skarion]

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.- Crusaderknight

You shouldn't try to understand the numbers of the Swedish kings then..

As our kings from Gustav Vasa have stated their numbers based on astrology, the bible and different gothic myths, you got rather strange numbers.

For example, there is a likely 0 procents chance that either Johan or Erik had the numbers they had if they had been calculating how many kings with the same name had been before them...

 

[Waldzwerg]

I like the way HoI/HoI2 is

Just some more historical and ahistorical events and I would be happy.

Hoi is basically one giant scenario spanning over 10 years. EU a historical campaign going over 400. Quite a difference.
That being said, i agree that having historical monarchs and especially leaders add a lot of flavour to the game, they should remain in some form. Just make it a bit more fluid and not totally determistic like it is now. Maybe add small dynastic trees for each country (nothing with the scope of CK of course).
Another thing i would like is the ability for the player to influence the stats of his leaders somehow (maybe through experience like in HOI), the completely predetermined leaderset was pretty annoying.

 

[Skarion]

Though it worked with Eu2.

Othervise I agree with Waldzwerg with most things except the dynasty trees.

Instead make it so you can only marry away the female parts of the family making it so that the rulers are the same, just with different mother.

This would still be able to create personal unions, ahistorical stuff etc, but still keeping the historical basics and the historical monarchs.

 

[George LeS]

You shouldn't try to understand the numbers of the Swedish kings then..

As our kings from Gustav Vasa have stated their numbers based on astrology, the bible and different gothic myths, you got rather strange numbers.

For example, there is a likely 0 procents chance that either Johan or Erik had the numbers they had if they had been calculating how many kings with the same name had been before them...

Sounds like women's clothing sizes did, until my wife put me onto the real rule dressmakers use.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Though it worked with Eu2.

Not really. Have you ever tried to make an event sequence to change a dynasty? Have you ever tried to figure out how to change rulers based on various political intrigues and user actions/choices?

No EU2 system did not work unless you wanted a relatively straight line of succession with maybe the occasional odd change in monarch.

 

[Skarion]

Not really. Have you ever tried to make an event sequence to change a dynasty? Have you ever tried to figure out how to change rulers based on various political intrigues and user actions/choices?

No EU2 system did not work unless you wanted a relatively straight line of succession with maybe the occasional odd change in monarch.

The sentence "It worked with EU2 though" is implied to the HoI2 thingy.

Also, dynasties are not so important as EU2 is about the "soul" of the nation and it's continuation through history, there only the most important aspects matters and how the different kings ruled as a average under their terms.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

The sentence "It worked with EU2 though" is implied to the HoI2 thingy.

Also, dynasties are not so important as EU2 is about the "soul" of the nation and it's continuation through history, there only the most important aspects matters and how the different kings ruled as a average under their terms.

Dynasty's not important, huh? I'd beg to differ.... Sure, they weren't as important in many ways as in CK, but even in Europe they were still important. Kings still wanted their descedants to rule, or at worst a relative, not some random noble....

And then there are some like OE, where the ruling dynasty was the basis for part of its power and claims it later occasionally pressed as Caliphate.

And outside Europe in some major non-european nations it was still quite important.

 

[Skarion]

Dynasty's not important, huh? I'd beg to differ.... Sure, they weren't as important in many ways as in CK, but even in Europe they were still important. Kings still wanted their descedants to rule, or at worst a relative, not some random noble....

And then there are some like OE, where the ruling dynasty was the basis for part of its power and claims it later occasionally pressed as Caliphate.

And outside Europe in some major non-european nations it was still quite important.

Dynasties were important for individuals, but if you dont care about relationships, alliances, vassalisations and so on, they didn't matter so much for the nation. Only the historical individuals who made a difference.

And those dynasties ties I have already in about 3 threads suggested to simulate by having female members of the family (Historically ammount just for fun) and then to marry them to other nations and by that aquiring a (In Eu2 terms) a RM, a claim on the nation and the possibility to get it as a PU.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Dynasties were important for individuals, but if you dont care about relationships, alliances, vassalisations and so on, they didn't matter so much for the nation. Only the historical individuals who made a difference.

And those dynasties ties I have already in about 3 threads suggested to simulate by having female members of the family (Historically ammount just for fun) and then to marry them to other nations and by that aquiring a (In Eu2 terms) a RM, a claim on the nation and the possibility to get it as a PU.

Well yea dynasty's have been discussed in other threads. I should know, I made some proposal ideas for them.

What I'm saying is that EU2's handling of rulers, and thus dynasty's is cludgy and generally quite bad. Like trying to fit a square block into a circle hole. It wasn't designed for it, because they felt it wasn't important enough, but even for EU2 it was to an extent. In EU3 from what's been released the need for a better system only increases.