Strager said:
Yes there are minor differences between EU2 and its spin offs. The POP system in vicky is a great example. It was still a minor difference however and the core idea of the game is still the same. The furthest from EU2 was CK with its dynastic simulation, but even that was only a medium sized difference.
As said, words like 'minor' and 'radical' are highly subjective, but I would strongly disagree that the POP system was minor. It changed the whole dynamic of the game and affected everything.
First of all, you might say that culture clashes are already present in EU, but POPs introduced magnitude and allowed you to deal with it in a multitude of ways (more tolerant government, perhaps). POPs also determined manpower, and your manpower's culture was important and thus its numbers as well. How much manpower of your national culture do you put into industry or in the army?
Then there's migration, a huge factor for American countries and the Old World who bled people through their ports.
Well, you get where I'm going. I love Vicky to bits. And we haven't even went into the vastly complex ideological system (POP influenced as well) and politics.
Strager said:
A game that would be radically different while remaining still an EU style game would be almost a complete remake of every major system. NOTHING execpt for the engine itself should be brought over. Every concept should be re-designed.
The problem is how do you measure 'difference'. Should Rome scrap the whole province map system as well? Of course, I do hope for a unique game as well, but I wouldn't be too precise in my expectations, since it may well dampen my experience of the game.
Strager said:
There were some major flaws in both EU2 and EU3 -- EU2 was too historically accurate, was out of date (engine wise) even before it was released (which ended up being a mixed curse- it helped pick up some sales, while hurting its chances with the graphics babies), and lost its appeal VERY quickly.
I actually found myself shuffling between Paradox games, going between EU2 to Vicky and to CK (now I have EU3 and HOI2 as well but no EU2) and that way kept each game quite fresh every time I find a new nation to play or a new way to play it.
Strager said:
There needs to be MANY more buildings to build - and they need to be cheap enough that your always shuffling through territories deciding where to spend your money. All your money should go to your bank, and the concept of interest should be dropped- while realistic its a huge detractor from the game- during war time you should be able to assign your units to formations, and (like in HoI2) order your units to "dig in" when defending.
I once felt that I wanted more and cheaper buildings as well. But then I learnt how to manage my cash and found that it's quite a lot more fun when you control cashflow carefully and save up for the reward, whether a new province colonised or a new structure built, rather than constantly trying to keep track of which provinces has already built what frantically. But that's prolly just my personal preference.
As for digging in, I'm not familiar enough about military history in EU's covered timeline and how big digging in had an effect on warfare.
cheers
One could argue on the low level of some teams but the system itself was interesting, for me
