-
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.
Neat article below the bit about Rome, too.
And I love sandbox. I just hope Paradox games never get so bland, as say, the more recent Total War games or even the Civ games, where most of the countries are equivalent to the point of being indistinguishable. Maybe dressed up, but strategically identical.
But the alternate history playing, the events like in CK that let you sculpt your own timeline... That is the stuff of which excellent games are made. But I was always a fan of veering away from history when playing EU2.
And I love sandbox. I just hope Paradox games never get so bland, as say, the more recent Total War games or even the Civ games, where most of the countries are equivalent to the point of being indistinguishable. Maybe dressed up, but strategically identical.
But the alternate history playing, the events like in CK that let you sculpt your own timeline... That is the stuff of which excellent games are made. But I was always a fan of veering away from history when playing EU2.
An interesting 'preview' with some new information
You can't just make trade-routes with any province, the provinces between them must have 'roads'.
Also the fact that you can sent a disloyal person to declare war on someone sounds great, which will most likely result in his death.
You can't just make trade-routes with any province, the provinces between them must have 'roads'.
Also the fact that you can sent a disloyal person to declare war on someone sounds great, which will most likely result in his death.
this line stuck out for me, and I think it's fairly accurate: "The average Civ IV player might look at the box for a Europa Universalis and think, 'Hey, I'm ready for this!', only to be baffled by the complexity and general aimlessness."
Bloody Americans.... they're crazy!!! Or Im a German's uncle!
EDIT: It looks like they even took the shirt of Johans back!!! Bloody airport workers!!!
Bloody heathen!!!
Ok. Not a heathen anymore! Just bloody....
All,
Anybody who thinks HOI II worked to poor effect and that EU II was too complicated is the wrong voice for Paradox to hear.
And there's a difference between historical rigidity (i.e. through scripted events) and historical realism. Some of us were disappointed in EU III not because it lacked the former but because it lacked the latter, with spies and certain national idea effects and the rest.
It's not important to me that Rome have Sulla and Marius and a scripted Triumvirate. It is important that war elephants are not ancient panzers and that Rome feels like Rome and Carthage feels like Carthage.
Anybody who thinks HOI II worked to poor effect and that EU II was too complicated is the wrong voice for Paradox to hear.
And there's a difference between historical rigidity (i.e. through scripted events) and historical realism. Some of us were disappointed in EU III not because it lacked the former but because it lacked the latter, with spies and certain national idea effects and the rest.
It's not important to me that Rome have Sulla and Marius and a scripted Triumvirate. It is important that war elephants are not ancient panzers and that Rome feels like Rome and Carthage feels like Carthage.
I generally agree with Johan about trying to guide several hundred years of history toward a historical outcome, but I would like to see at least a few major historical events. Something along the lines of the Marian Reform for example.
I thought Victoria held the distinction of worst selling game (although its probably my fav)?
And I have to disagree with the whole 'events dont make sense' line of thought. Events if properly coded (like in Vicky) can be present in the game and not be ridiculous even over an extended timespan, although granted vicky is 100 years at the most- still enough time for plenty of historical divergence.
And I have to disagree with the whole 'events dont make sense' line of thought. Events if properly coded (like in Vicky) can be present in the game and not be ridiculous even over an extended timespan, although granted vicky is 100 years at the most- still enough time for plenty of historical divergence.
Yes, as far as I know it is, but Johan said according to the correction (readable at the bottom of the interview) that EU2 was the worst selling game of the EU series.HMS Enterprize said:
HMS Enterprize said:
Even Vicky had WWI cut off from Grand Campaign because it didn't make sense. After all, the game has run for a bit less then 100 years and things could be so much different. For example, France and England hating each other, or Austria and Prussia doing the same. Or Russia loving Prussia and Austria and joining them for steamrolling the Western Europe. Or Sweden taking over Prussia. Or whatever. So basically, the political situation by 1914 could be so very different that WWI would not make any sense at all.
Same for example English Civil War and mr. Cromwell. If you had been a nice and benevolent ruler for 200 years, there is no reason for a revolt. Yet, you do get it.
Or being the richest country in the world as Spain and boom! you suddenly go bankrupt.
Or- for Marian reforms. Rome hasn't been in war for a decade or two. There are enough of traditional soldiers around and there is no need for recruiting lower plebes.
hjarg said:
Quite reasonable, thats why the core thing here is to elaborate a numerous and intresting event pools for the situations when causes for such a historical precedents would appear - be it noble`s/peasant`s unrest, army inefficiency or influx of gold. And that EU3 severely lacked, while I think the current game engine potentially can handle this very good.
Problem here was that many natural causes aren`t modelled by the game properly due to some abstraction or whatever. E.g. EU2 couldn`t model strife of noble houses for some land claims - that`s one of the needs for rigid events to model history. And that added an additional "historical" dimention to the game.
And I couldn`t agree more on need for historical realism... It`s much better to feel that you play Rome than Red blob. EU:Rome looks promising in that respect.
I personally liked Vicky. I got NHL 05 for Christmas for my PC and I do not play sports games on my PC so I returned it for Vicky. The EB guy was like, are you sure you want THAT game and I have not regreted it since.
Cortes_R, i agree with you there. More events, better events. Better diplomacy model that gives you more flexibility.
But nothing like pre-determined events, please.
But nothing like pre-determined events, please.
Most problematic things in EU2 were not events themselves (which added a lot of flavour to the game - and which EU3 lacked), but triggers. Triggers in EU2 were simply too generic and couldn't cope with many situations, and extensive base of events caused many events to be improperly scripted. It's surely wrong when your flouorishing Spain gets bancrupcy for no reason, but what about:
1526? Can EU3 simulate such real life events like earlier Jagiellonian-Habsburg agreement? What about inheriting Hungary-Bohemia (personal union) by Austria in case of Hungary King's death? Is it "historically unplausible"?
Liberum Veto? Can it be simulated in-game?
Decline of Ottoman Empire. If, I repeat, If, Ottomans are in bad shape, it was possible for them to be technologically backward (in game terms: "move to previous techgroup").
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing EU3 engine here, and I think that it will suit Rome way better then EU2's engine. The best thing would be to join together EU3 engine (leaders, advisors, ideas, units, combat system) with EU2's attention to details/culture/religion/nation specifics which made playing each faction distinctively diffrent.
1526? Can EU3 simulate such real life events like earlier Jagiellonian-Habsburg agreement? What about inheriting Hungary-Bohemia (personal union) by Austria in case of Hungary King's death? Is it "historically unplausible"?
Liberum Veto? Can it be simulated in-game?
Decline of Ottoman Empire. If, I repeat, If, Ottomans are in bad shape, it was possible for them to be technologically backward (in game terms: "move to previous techgroup").
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing EU3 engine here, and I think that it will suit Rome way better then EU2's engine. The best thing would be to join together EU3 engine (leaders, advisors, ideas, units, combat system) with EU2's attention to details/culture/religion/nation specifics which made playing each faction distinctively diffrent.