Lack of historical feeling and atmosphere

[unmerged(2619)]

First impressions: lack of historical feeling and atmosphere

After playing many hour with the new EU3 I'm still not sure about my judgment and by the way EU3 doesn't seem to me so different from EU2. And if it is possible in some aspects, the new release is worse than the old one. Generally I feel a lack of historical atmosphere. The new event system (similar in the concept to CK) is intersting coz focus the attention about causes and effects inside the game dynamics. This is intersting coz give EU3 an own internal dynamic that can evolve each game differently. But the lack of real historical events get me confused and disoriented. This is an historical game and I wish to feel an historical experience but how can I play since 1453 to 1792 and feeling an historical atmosphere if I have not the Tordesillas treaty, religious wars in XVI centuries, 30 years war, 7 years war, the poland partition and so on? Just as exemple I didn't see any event about the lutheran revolution, during XVI cent. I just noticed I had a religion more...

Summarizing my first impression are:

BAD
1) Event system that need to be integrated with real historical events. I hope in the community for that, but I think Paradox should have introduced it (at least a framework of it)
2) lack of auto-pause (but Paradox promised it in the second patch)
3) lack of the message "when an army/fleet reach its destination): I lost so many navies coz I forgot them in the sea (outliner is useful but it's not enough to avoid that bad situation). Paradox didn't say anything about it and I hope it will be re-introduced in the next patch
3) Conquistadors need tweaked to be more difficult. Coz in few years I explored all America from north to south using the same 3000 troops and when thay die, conquistador magically reappear in the pool (like an explorer when his navies are sunk)


GOOD
1) Outliner
2) Forms of government
3) National Ideas
4) Advisors
5) Discovery spread


DON'T CARE: graphics. Yes it's much more nice than in EU2 but who cares that in a deep strategic game? After playing 30 minutes I already forgot the difference between EU2 and EU3

 

[kullenius]

I also feel the lack of historical feeling being a real turn down. EU3 is a fantasy game with historical setup. After playing a few hours it just seems plain boring, no special feelings to it at all. But that is probably because I hardly ever manages to stay interested in games with no special feelings (most often historical such) to them

 

[ReD_SeNTEnZa]

After playing many hour with the new EU3 I'm still not sure about my judgment and by the way EU3 doesn't seem to me so different from EU2. And if it is possible in some aspects, the new release is worse than the old one. Generally I feel a lack of historical atmosphere. The new event system (similar in the concept to CK) is intersting coz focus the attention about causes and effects inside the game dynamics. This is intersting coz give EU3 an own internal dynamic that can evolve each game differently. But the lack of real historical events get me confused and disoriented. This is an historical game and I wish to feel an historical experience but how can I play since 1453 to 1792 and feeling an historical atmosphere if I have not the Tordesillas treaty, religious wars in XVI centuries, 30 years war, 7 years war, the poland partition and so on? Just as exemple I didn't see any event about the lutheran revolution, during XVI cent. I just noticed I had a religion more...

Summarizing my first impression are:

BAD
1) Event system that need to be integrated with real historical events. I hope in the community for that, but I think Paradox should have introduced it (at least a framework of it)
2) lack of auto-pause (but Paradox promised it in the second patch)
3) lack of the message "when an army/fleet reach its destination): I lost so many navies coz I forgot them in the sea (outliner is useful but it's not enough to avoid that bad situation). Paradox didn't say anything about it and I hope it will be re-introduced in the next patch
3) Conquistadors need tweaked to be more difficult. Coz in few years I explored all America from north to south using the same 3000 troops and when thay die, conquistador magically reappear in the pool (like an explorer when his navies are sunk)


GOOD
1) Outliner
2) Forms of government
3) National Ideas
4) Advisors
5) Discovery spread

I feel exactly the same. Except I like the 3D map.

I think a way to please everyone could be an option to activate or deactivate the historical events and the historical leaders of the played realm...

Historical events was the big thing that first attract me to EU2. I feel a loss in EU3 ... but maybe practicing will change this!

ps : sorry if this is bad english :/

 

[ComradeOm]

I think a way to please everyone could be an option to activate or deactivate the historical events and the historical leaders of the played realm...

So you want Paradox to add in extra content that may or may not be used? That's both impractical and a waste of resources from Paradox's point of view.

What people have to accept is that Paradox made the game they wanted to make. If major changes are going to occur then it is up to the users to mod them.

 

[unmerged(12990)]

I agree that at least some kind of framework for historical events wouldn't hurt.

 

[Laffertytig]

this is how i felt playin the demo, it just felt very dry and bland. people say that historic events made EU2 predictable but i aint a histort buff so most of the events came as surprises to me which made the game more challenging.

maybe EU3 should be tagged as a war simulator as thats how it seems to play. i reckon il hold of buyin it till some decent mods come out

 

[Gathenhielm]

This is an historical game and I wish to feel an historical experience but how can I play since 1453 to 1792 and feeling an historical atmosphere if I have not the Tordesillas treaty, religious wars in XVI centuries, 30 years war, 7 years war, the poland partition and so on? Just as exemple I didn't see any event about the lutheran revolution, during XVI cent. I just noticed I had a religion more...

But the 30 years war and a lots of other great war never happened in EU2 too. Sure you got a pop up event saying something about it, increased some relations here and ther, but that's was it.

I do agree that the global events like the reformation need a pop up message or something.

 

[unmerged(31558)]

Yes...lets have hardcoded historical events in the game even when the circumstances dont support them.

I HATED when I played Austria and inherited Hungary and the Netherlands, it made the game way too easy. Whats the point of playing the game if you know whats going to happen?

 

[unmerged(2619)]

eature and also some (important) downgrad

this is how i felt playin the demo, it just felt very dry and bland. people say that historic events made EU2 predictable but i aint a histort buff so most of the events came as surprises to me which made the game more challenging.

maybe EU3 should be tagged as a war simulator as thats how it seems to play. i reckon il hold of buyin it till some decent mods come out

Yes many spoke about deterministic pattern, but I don't think so. First because an historcial strategic game must have some link with the real history (an historical structure is not enough, I think). Second because events were so many (and every time AI had the chance to choose an unhistorical option) that the pattern was always different with different output.

I'm sorry to have to say that generally this EU3 seems to me like an EU2 with better graphics and few few new feature and some (important) downgrade

 

[unmerged(21215)]

Yes, there are way to few events in the game. If you're really mean, it could seem like like they saved some time on making the game more "dynamic". But hey, if they just inserted a lot more Ifs into events, they would also feel dynamic. And I mean a lot more ifs...

 

[Lloyien]

I find it rather odd that people continue to complain about (purely) historical events not being in EU3. Perhaps it's because I've picked up other Paradox titles (Victoria, in particular) before EU2, but I was under the impression that EU2 was actually lacking when it came to historical events. Unless the player is one of the big European nations, it is entirely possible to have no historical events occur whatsoever--and the ones that did usually had no basis, anyway. What good is an event without the foundation to make it logical?

If you want historical events that make sense, my suggestion would be to get Victoria. Besides being one of Paradox's best releases, it has well-detailed and planned chains of historical events.

 

[Ironhead 5]

I'm certain that in these first few months after release there will be plenty of mods coming out with historical event packages... although I agree with Awakened and evleos that you need a lot of ifs - something that could change the course of the game dramatically.

 

[unmerged(12990)]

That's just it. I don't think that those of us in favor of historical events support dozens of events per country, maybe just a handful of important ones, with lets say, one historical choice and several non-historical choices. For the AI, they could be set that there would be a high probability that it would choose the non-historical option. It would give some much needed historical flavor, without messing gameplay too much.
No events such as inhereting other countries (as with Austria for example), but maybe events like the Treaty of Tordesailles, where you could choose e.g. to sign it, but also have 2,3 or 4 other choices which would give you ahistorical, but still plausible results.

I would say that such events will be modded in, but AFAIK historical events in the EU2 style cannot be modded into EU3.

 

[unmerged(2619)]

I find it rather odd that people continue to complain about (purely) historical events not being in EU3. Perhaps it's because I've picked up other Paradox titles (Victoria, in particular) before EU2, but I was under the impression that EU2 was actually lacking when it came to historical events. Unless the player is one of the big European nations, it is entirely possible to have no historical events occur whatsoever--and the ones that did usually had no basis, anyway. What good is an event without the foundation to make it logical?

If you want historical events that make sense, my suggestion would be to get Victoria. Besides being one of Paradox's best releases, it has well-detailed and planned chains of historical events.

I played all Paradox games since Eu1, but now Eu3 is no more an historical strategic game, it became just a strategic game with some reference with history. I think this was a core feature and it was thrown away to reach more customers (togheter with the more appealing graphics). But now the game is not fish neither meat. So I think it can dispappoint old supporters and I'm not so sure it can attract new ones, bacause the game remain deep and difficult to learn in his many aspects. I don't think this re-styling (to worse) of the old EU2 will attract Totalwar serie 14 yrs players

 

[ComradeOm]

I think this was a core feature and it was thrown away to reach more customers

I'm certain that it was "thrown away" because Paradox, like myself, were sick and tired of having events occur out of context. EUII was particularly bad at this and it actually made some nations almost unplayable - ever played as Russia and gotten the whole "Time of Troubles" series despite your game not mirroring history? I got fed up when the game told me that the Poles burnt Moscow for the second time... despite me knowing full well that nothing like that had happened. Sweden was even worse with a whole event chain triggering because of a Thirty Years War that never happened.

So wake up to the fact that Paradox made the game that they wanted to make. If you don't like this then feel free to mod it. No need to complain about an aspect of the game that we have known would not be present for months now. This, after all, is not EUII.

 

[Palle]

I think that the dynamic event system is simply superior to EU2. The "historical" events in EU2 where really bad for gameplay. They were gamey and illogical. The current system is much better, it let's you play the game the way you want and then reacts to your actions and policies. In EU2 you had to mold your game style to events, which prevented real long-term strategies. Also human players know what events are coming and can unrealistically anticipate these.

I understand that many players liked the events and would like to have them back. I hope it will be possible to mod them so that everybody can enjoy the game, but what I've read in another thread it seems very difficult or impossible.

 

[Palle]

I'm certain that it was "thrown away" because Paradox, like myself, were sick and tired of having events occur out of context. EUII was particularly bad at this and it actually made some nations almost unplayable - ever played as Russia and gotten the whole "Time of Troubles" series despite your game not mirroring history? I got fed up when the game told me that the Poles burnt Moscow for the second time... despite me knowing full well that nothing like that had happened. Sweden was even worse with a whole event chain triggering because of a Thirty Years War that never happened.

So wake up to the fact that Paradox made the game that they wanted to make. If you don't like this then feel free to mod it. No need to complain about an aspect of the game that we have known would not be present for months now. This, after all, is not EUII.

Very well said.

 

[Duke of Wellington]

I think a way to please everyone could be an option to activate or deactivate the historical events and the historical leaders of the played realm...

Johan said they tried to do something like that but it made so many features of the game unworkable it was dropped early on.

 

[Namm]

The big problem with many of the events in EU2 were (despite the fact that there was way too few of them, even with the great mods) that they happened no matter what. France, Granada, whatever could chew up the whole Iberian Peninsula and the Papacy would still split up the New World between Spain and Portugal. China could get high stability, raise huge armies and eradicate the Manchus but would anyway be annexed by them... You get the picture.

The way out of this would have been to added more prerequisits and more dynamic choices in the events.

(togheter with the more appealing graphics)

You mean appalling?

 

[Duke of Wellington]

I'm certain that it was "thrown away" because Paradox, like myself, were sick and tired of having events occur out of context.

I agree with this entirely and I like the feeling when playing the game that there is a lot more freedom to really control the nation.

That said it also has a downside in that some 'flavour' or 'X-factor' is lost that does lead to less of an atmosphere.