Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

imports from other games

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis III 46143 EU3 - After Action Reports (AAR)
unmerged(11600)

unmerged(11600)

bring the game home!
Nov 8, 2002
5.788
1
Visit site
OK, I've watched for about a week to see if anyone would describe these things, but I guess almost everyone here plays a range of Paradox games. So, for the benefit of those of us who have only played EU, could someone please explain the following, which Johan has said will be brought into EU3:

personalities (CK)

leadership (Vicky)

intelligence (HoI2)

Knowing what these things are will help me better understand where Paradox plans on going with the game, which will allow me to better comment on various suggestions. 3 sanity points awarded for the first explanation of each, an even 10 if all three.

-Pat
 
pjcrowe said:
intelligence (HoI2)

-Pat
Click to expand...
This will be introduced in the upcoming doomsday scenario and is not part of regular HOI2. So i do not think anyone can give a real explanation as yet.
 
The idea of POPs from Vicky was good.

Would nice to see a better developed version of it.

Note: I am not suggesting that players get to play "Soviet Union : the game in which you are Stalin and have 1950s style total control of your people to promote and demote as you wish in a 15-18th century backdrop". No, no, definitely not. Please God no.

Rather that POPs form the basis of the social model and you dont really have an awful lot of control over it if much at all.
 
Mowers said:
The idea of POPs from Vicky was good.
Click to expand...

It was, but it just did not work. It took massive effort to define the Pops and half them were wrong. Even more effort was spent trying to get them to behave in a rational way. Me I simply played a game without social reform and it made no difference ;)
 
Smirfy said:
It was, but it just did not work. It took massive effort to define the Pops and half them were wrong. Even more effort was spent trying to get them to behave in a rational way. Me I simply played a game without social reform and it made no difference ;)
Click to expand...

IMO it screwed up due to two key factors that were fundamental flaws in the design

1) One type of peasant - tribal bedu in central africa or chinese landless peasants were the same as the small hold English farmer. All of whom were just one step away from being office workers........ :wacko:. The effect this had on the game was, imo, disasterous because the rest of the beta time was spent trying to band aid over the problems it caused with one off special rules and prestige *shudder*.

2) Central state control over society with its ability to directly promote and demote was so unrealistic and open and created so many player driven problems that couldnt be corrected.

I share your concerns that it could go wrong and fubar everything up. I would suggest making a simple version of it that players can barely effect so that we can make a model that cant be broken easily.

I would even be happy to see an alternative system, but my primary concern is adding depth, not complexity, to the domestic model to create a more interesting player/ subject "class" relationship and interaction.
 
Mowers said:
IMO it screwed up due to two key factors that were fundamental flaws in the design
Click to expand...

Nope the idea was flawed, it was simply beyond Paradox and her beta's resources.

Mowers said:
1) One type of peasant - tribal bedu in central africa or chinese landless peasants were the same as the small hold English farmer. All of whom were just one step away from being office workers........ :wacko:. The effect this had on the game was, imo, disasterous because the rest of the beta time was spent trying to band aid over the problems it caused with one off special rules and prestige *shudder*..[



2) Central state control over society with its ability to directly promote and demote was so unrealistic and open and created so many player driven problems that couldnt be corrected. .
Click to expand...

No change could have saved the system it was too ambitous an idea




Mowers said:
I share your concerns that itI would suggest making a simple version of it that players can barely effect so that we can make a model that cant be broken easily.

I would even be happy to see an alternative system, but my primary concern is adding depth, not complexity, to the domestic model to create a more interesting player/ subject "class" relationship and interaction.
Click to expand...

You have Religion, Exploration Trade, Colonization, Warfare, Government, Events, Technology, Infrastructure, Population, Warfare etc etc etc all to model and interact with each other. All with a new engine we aint seen. Thats is plenty of depth to be going on with ;)
 
Smirfy said:
Nope the idea was flawed, it was simply beyond Paradox and her beta's resources.

No change could have saved the system it was too ambitous an idea
Click to expand...

fair enough.

Smirfy said:
You have Religion, Exploration Trade, Colonization, Warfare, Government, Events, Technology, Infrastructure, Population, Warfare etc etc etc all to model and interact with each other. All with a new engine we aint seen. Thats is plenty of depth to be going on with ;)
Click to expand...

Player direct controlled Trade - unrealistic, ahistoric. hassle
Player direct controlled Colonization - unrealistic
Player direct controlled Technology - unrealistic, ahistoric
Player direct controlled Infrastructure - hmm, mowers verdict out.

None of these things add anything to the game and we spent 3 years attempting to patch them up because they were too complex to work with direct player input.

I am suggesting we remove some of these features as "gameplay". I mean, how much fun is it really to add governors to every province or manage technology bars? I cant really see what they add to the core game or the historical plausibility of the game. Plus they contained so many unknowns that the game had to be constantly balanced to keep everything check to stop aspects going out of whack due to the latest exploit involving following the "must have policy" of the month.

In their place I am advocating that we add a domestic model that takes no longer to manage than the system I am suggesting we remove but creates a ruler / population interaction that we have never had before beyond managing what your population rebellion rate was.

I am not advocating a huge block of additional tasks nor am I suggesting massive amounts of new player tedius management but that we replace the functionality that is ahistoric and slightly tedious and add it with a domestic model (of sorts).

I do think we have room for an improved domestic model and I do think we have elements of the game that are weak in the domestic arena and that a rebalance, of sorts, would make the game better.
 
I feel I am struggling here to visualise my concept to you.

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

http://www.volny.cz/tom-cat/dictator/eng/dictator.htm#stahovadlo

Its called Dictator and being like me you might just well remember it or have owned it at some point

The name of this horribly addictive and very simple early 1980s game was to run a small banana republic by balancing out

But you were forever running out of money making it difficult to please everyone in your country. Indeed it was impossible to please everyone which ultimately led to ones demise. I am suggesting a style of gameplay like this. (not quite as extreme I might add)

Download and play it for 5 minutes, you'll see what I am talking about.
 
Mowers said:
Player direct controlled Trade - unrealistic, ahistoric. hassle
.
Click to expand...

Yes and there will likely be a new system, several suggestions have been madeand Im sure Paradox have there own ideas.

Mowers said:
Player direct controlled Colonization - unrealistic .
Click to expand...

Whether it is realistic or not if it is a practical game mechanic it should be kept, there was nothing really wrong with the actual mechanic in EUII. If a better mechanic comes along I'll be well pleased if not I'll hardly get depressed.

Mowers said:
Player direct controlled Technology - unrealistic, ahistoric.
Click to expand...

Because the player could turn money on and off like a tap in all the techs and invest to the extreme making a nonsense of all modifiers the system failed. I dont see Paradox making the same mistake again. But if Henry VIII wants to invest in Navy the player should be allowed to weight his investment in that direction.


Mowers said:
Player direct controlled Infrastructure - hmm, mowers verdict out.
.
Click to expand...

I dont know about you but outside day to day things like trade I'm a pretty hands on guy. I dont trust any AI to build my infrastructure. It's my France, My Spain

Mowers said:
None of these things add anything to the game and we spent 3 years attempting to patch them up because they were too complex to work with direct player input..
Click to expand...

Mowers to claim that your untried concept will be easier to Balance than Paradox's unseen concept stretches the credulity of your arguement

Hopefully though paradox will make all the features interact like religous type country size government type and whatever method they use to define policy.

Mowers said:
I am suggesting we remove some of these features as "gameplay". I mean, how much fun is it really to add governors to every province or manage technology bars? .
Click to expand...

Infinitly more than managing POPs or looking for a wife in CK But there is room for improvement and other games have made strides here.

Mowers said:
I cant really see what they add to the core game or the historical plausibility of the game. Plus they contained so many unknowns that the game had to be constantly balanced to keep everything check to stop aspects going out of whack due to the latest exploit involving following the "must have policy" of the month. .
Click to expand...


Every game will have exploits no matter which system is in place




Mowers said:
In their place I am advocating that we add a domestic model that takes no longer to manage than the system I am suggesting we remove but creates a ruler / population interaction that we have never had before beyond managing what your population rebellion rate was.

I am not advocating a huge block of additional tasks nor am I suggesting massive amounts of new player tedius management but that we replace the functionality that is ahistoric and slightly tedious and add it with a domestic model (of sorts).

I do think we have room for an improved domestic model and I do think we have elements of the game that are weak in the domestic arena and that a rebalance, of sorts, would make the game better.
Click to expand...

I can't see anything you have said there as within what is practical. There will be new features put in I'm sure of it.If you can't run full Aristocracy with full Free I would be happy. :)
 
Last edited:
Mowers said:
I feel I am struggling here to visualise my concept to you.

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

http://www.volny.cz/tom-cat/dictator/eng/dictator.htm#stahovadlo

Its called Dictator and being like me you might just well remember it or have owned it at some point

The name of this horribly addictive and very simple early 1980s game was to run a small banana republic by balancing out

But you were forever running out of money making it difficult to please everyone in your country. Indeed it was impossible to please everyone which ultimately led to ones demise. I am suggesting a style of gameplay like this. (not quite as extreme I might add)

Download and play it for 5 minutes, you'll see what I am talking about.
Click to expand...


Played it on the speccy before. It is scripted for one nation basically and works on the Russian Roulette principal of riding your luck, with that you will eventullly have a coup

If all the features interact EUIII will be fine.
 
Smirfy said:
Whether it is realistic or not if it is a practical game mechanic it should be kept, there was nothing really wrong with the actual mechanic in EUII. If a better mechanic comes along I'll be well pleased if not I'll hardly get depressed.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm not advocating change for change sake and if someone has a better idea or a way of improving an old idea I'm all ears.

Smirfy said:
Because the player could turn money on and off like a tap in all the techs and invest to the extreme making a nonsense of all modifiers the system failed. I dont see Paradox making the same mistake again. But if Henry VIII wants to invest in Navy the player should be allowed to weight his investment in that direction.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm with you. I am certainly not advocating no control - just restricted.

Smirfy said:
I dont know about you but outside day to day things like trade I'm a pretty hands on guy. I dont trust any AI to build my infrastructure. It's my France, My Spain
Click to expand...

Nor would I trust it, but if we all have the same system we cant go so far wrong?


Smirfy said:
Mowers to claim that your untried concept will be easier to Balance than Paradox's unseen concept stretches the credulity of your arguement
Click to expand...

I'd be a fool to disagree :)

Smirfy said:
Hopefully though paradox will make all the features interact like religous type country size government type and whatever method they use to define policy.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Smirfy said:
Infinitly more than managing POPs are looking for a wife in CK But there is room for improvement and other games have made strides here.
Click to expand...

I like some of the concepts and I'd like to see them developed with out distracting from the core game.

Smirfy said:
I can't see anything you have said there as within what is practical. There will be new features put in I'm sure of it.If you can't run full Aristocracy with full Free I would be happy. :)
Click to expand...

I think thats the sort of thing I am talking about combined with a little less player clarity. We'll see, I'm curious as to what is actually on "the table" for dicussion and what is sewn up already.
 
Mowers said:
I like some of the concepts and I'd like to see them developed with out distracting from the core game. .
Click to expand...


Your concepts are fine it's just EU is a sort of concept of its own being based on the board game.


Mowers said:
I think thats the sort of thing I am talking about combined with a little less player clarity. We'll see, I'm curious as to what is actually on "the table" for dicussion and what is sewn up already.
Click to expand...


We all would love to see what is on the table at the minute. :)
 
Im a big fan of the board game and I am only currently advocating the removal of non board game elements and the addition of a simple domestic model that we already have in one form or another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back