I mean I like most aspect of EU games, except it has no personality. It would be great if the game is more character driven. Crusader King was moving toward that direction but I think 3 Kingdoms are much better at implementing characters. Ofcourse the scope is much smaller than EU, so I wonder if it can be implemented nicely.
Is it possible to combine EU2 with KOEI's 3 kingdoms?
- Thread starter unmerged(9132)
- Start date
-
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.
This thread might interest you.
Personally i would not want EUIII to become very character driven, you play the country, not the King who has to manage court and family.
Personally i would not want EUIII to become very character driven, you play the country, not the King who has to manage court and family.
Yes, one of the things I liked about KOEI was their combat model...even if it was 15 years ago. They did a good job modeling supply and if you didn't have enough food you were forced to break off seiges. They also did a good job with tactical battles...if paradox could do this, it would be a plus...although I'm not sure how possible that would be in a RTS vs. turn-based. EU III should take into account supply and the costs of manning an army. One of the things that made the period so interesting was the fact that armies did not stay in the field long, that they took winter quarters, that they disbanded when short on money, and looted vast amounts of land to feed their soldiers. These affects are very noticable in the 30yrs war. Looting was one of the reasons germany lost 1/3 of its population. The Netherlands lost more than one war because it could not get enough food to its people. KOEI did a good job with this aspect of the game and EU III and more modern technology could go a long way towards modeling this.
Maybe a mix of CK and KOEIs RotTK/GK games yes, EUIII, um, no. Scope is a bit different.
I also enjoyed playing ROTK, but when you said to combine EUII with it, I thought you were heading in a different direction. I definitely don't want character based, and as Johan has clearly said, the player is the soul/essense/etc of the country, not the ruler of the country.
There are alot of other good aspects in that game that can be implemented, particularly the army model as was mentioned above. Food is very important in this time! Famines were very common in the earlier half of this period. These things were not modeled at all in EUII except as random events...
But if they can find a way to model food supply/famine, those are things that have direct causes. They're not random - specific actions such as troops moving through, the kings taxes too high, corrupt bishoprics, weather, many things. So it would greatly improve the realism of the game.
There are alot of other good aspects in that game that can be implemented, particularly the army model as was mentioned above. Food is very important in this time! Famines were very common in the earlier half of this period. These things were not modeled at all in EUII except as random events...
But if they can find a way to model food supply/famine, those are things that have direct causes. They're not random - specific actions such as troops moving through, the kings taxes too high, corrupt bishoprics, weather, many things. So it would greatly improve the realism of the game.
The character aspect is a core part of it. EU3 would have to be redone with the character model as a core element that couldn't be ignored. A Ghenghis Khan system might be better. The scope is also far more limited and the research done there is far more in depth than anything EU3 could hope to model. I don't want EU3 to attempt to model Rot3K and fail.
However, some of Rot3K aspects can be used, such as their distaster model, their better use of supply for sieges (except in 10), etc.
However, some of Rot3K aspects can be used, such as their distaster model, their better use of supply for sieges (except in 10), etc.