Lack of historical feeling and atmosphere

[Duuk]

Still the game has outcomes which are not even remotely realistic. Such as Venice colonising the New World or Russia colonising in Africa. That's not "historically plausible" for me ... and it was always Paradox's self-declared goal to produce a game which delivers plausible outcomes rather than just repeating history.

EU3 does neither.

...

Because having France descend into religious war when it was 100% catholic WAS plausible.

:rofl:

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

Still the game has outcomes which are not even remotely realistic. Such as Venice colonising the New World or Russia colonising in Africa. That's not "historically plausible" for me ... and it was always Paradox's self-declared goal to produce a game which delivers plausible outcomes rather than just repeating history.

EU3 does neither.

Patience. Let's see what's possible with the new model. All, I suspect, will be well.

 

[Basileios I]

Patience. Let's see what's possible with the new model. All, I suspect, will be well.

I hope so.

Until then I won't buy the game.

 

[Basileios I]

...

Because having France descend into religious war when it was 100% catholic WAS plausible.

:rofl:

It was also possible to condition historical events in EU2.

 

[Duuk]

It was also possible to condition historical events in EU2.

Yes. But if Burgundy won the HYW there were no french wars of religion, no french revolution, etc.

In EU3 there would be.

 

[unmerged(2619)]

God...oh God! How is it possible that somebody doesn't still get it!

please, please... read on:


Let’s enumerate what the vast majority of us, the critics, *DON’T WANT*, AGAIN:

1) Nobody is asking for the game to doggedly follow history as it starts.

2) Nobody, to my knowledge, wants to have Austria and Spain "forced to approach". Nobody, to my knowledge, wants to play a static game taken from the History Chanel.

3) I cannot atest for everybody, of course, but I guess the large majority of the people here who is in the "other camp", never sugested or implied any kind of unsophistication upon those who like the random way the game now displays.

4) Nobody is saying this game *is* Civilization. However, anybody is entiled his own opinion and yes, anybody can say EU3 *is* Civilization without raising any kind of bad feelings expressely of it.

Now, let's enumerate what we find as thwe most proeminent issues with the game, AGAIN:

1) Once started, the game flow is simply random. Each country acts as like they do not have a past. Only the assigned resouces. AI decision making is the same for all countries, as far as we can tell. We don't want the other countries to simulate human playes. We want thwem to mimic the real motives they had 500 hundred years ago. Now, please note, to mimic the real motives *does not equate* to mimic History. It should all be based on probability. And playing with probabilities for 300 years will certainly provide a very different map and balance of power once the game reaches its end.
There are too few events with too general triggers in the game.

2) Colonization and navigation are poorly implemented. Castille colonizing America in 1460? Teutonic Order in Africa in 1470? One voyage is enough to map the eastern half of the american continent revealing 90% of the land provincies? And what do you think about a conquistador with 1000 men going from Eastern US to California in one trip, losing 65 men in the process and able to replenish the men around 1460? The first time somebody did it was in the XIX century AFAIK...

3) Inheritances are poorly implemented. Provence inheriting Portugal? England inheriting Burgundy? Mecklenburg inherinting Sweden? All of these in 20 years? Nobody is claiming a couple of ahistorical "big" inheritances can't happen in 300 years. They are in fact, welcome! But to have this sort of thing in 20 years, like me?

Well said Ubik, good summarizing capacity. I think this manifest can say the last word in this discussion. Even because it seems to me that is totally useless continuing, we will not able to find a synthesis between thesis and anthitesis because it's clear the 2 groups like completley different games. I understood very well the position of EU3 supporters, what I'm not understanding is the acidity of some ones of their posts. So dear EU3 crusaders, dear defensoris Paradoxis, why are u so angry if we dislike this title and if we find it so boring? We are simply expressing our bitter disappointment (much much bigger for who between us that already bought the game, like me ), we are hoping (probability 0.1%?) that Paradox invert the sense, we are warning ppl who like our kind of games, to don't buy EU3 because it don't match with their desires. U are still repeating Paradox wanted so, Johan wanted so... and so on. Ok and so? While it's legitimate for Paradox to do the game they want, it's legitimate to us to saying to Paradox we will not follow them in this new route, I wish good luck to Paradox but I will not be again a customer

PS an underling about History Channel, I don't want a game that follow history channel, simply because history channel is not history, just stupid fiction and tales based on what rightly the Annales scholl called "histoire evenementielle", an history that remains at the superifice of the facts without studing the deep reasons

 

[Sekenr]

Well said Ubik, good summarizing capacity. I think this manifest can say the last word in this discussion. Even because it seems to me that is totally useless continuing, we will not able to find a synthesis between thesis and anthitesis because it's clear the 2 groups like completley different games. I understood very well the position of EU3 supporters, what I'm not understanding is the acidity of some ones of their. So dear EU3 crusaders, dear defensoris Paradoxis, why are u so angry if we dislike this title and if we find it so boring? We are simply expressing our bitter disappointment (much much bigger for who between us that already bought the game, like me ), we are hoping (probability 0.1%?) that Paradox invert the sense, we are warning ppl who like our kind of games, to don't buy EU3 because it don't match with their desires. U are still repeating Paradox wanted so, Johan wanted so... and so on. Ok and so? While it's legitimate for Paradox to do the game they want, it's legitimate to us to saying to Paradox we will not follow them in this new route, I wish good luck to Paradox but I will not be again a customer

Well said. I'm not saying that I'm abandoning Paradox for good, but EUIII kind of lacks the stuff that I liked about Paradox games. So hopefully some other developer will come to fill the niche of historical strategy games. And I mean historical in a sense of EUII or Victoria.

 

[Belissarius]

Well said Ubik, good summarizing capacity. I think this manifest can say the last word in this discussion. Even because it seems to me that is totally useless continuing, we will not able to find a synthesis between thesis and anthitesis because it's clear the 2 groups like completley different games. I understood very well the position of EU3 supporters, what I'm not understanding is the acidity of some ones of their posts. So dear EU3 crusaders, dear defensoris Paradoxis, why are u so angry if we dislike this title and if we find it so boring? We are simply expressing our bitter disappointment (much much bigger for who between us that already bought the game, like me ), we are hoping (probability 0.1%?) that Paradox invert the sense, we are warning ppl who like our kind of games, to don't buy EU3 because it don't match with their desires. U are still repeating Paradox wanted so, Johan wanted so... and so on. Ok and so? While it's legitimate for Paradox to do the game they want, it's legitimate to us to saying to Paradox we will not follow them in this new route, I wish good luck to Paradox but I will not be again a customer

You know you have people that insult the supporters of the current game and then you wonder why we don't just roll over. You have people that deliberatly misquote people or manufacture false facts and we call them on it and we are the ones who are acidic?

Why do you need to warn people? Johan/Paradox has been 100% crystal clear during development that the game was going in this direction. Johan said time and time again that EU2 was a Game not a historical simulation. They have made the game the most moddable ever but for many in your camp its not good enough. You HAVE to know this game IS NOT going in the direction you desire. A direction that was not kept secret a direction that was fully disclosed.

 

[Skarion]

Yes. But if Burgundy won the HYW there were no french wars of religion, no french revolution, etc.

In EU3 there would be.

Are we sure though that if Burgundy actually did win the HYW, would they in reality experienced war of religion or the French revolution? We don't know. We only know that it did actually happend if France won the HYW.

 

[unmerged(2619)]

You know you have people that insult the supporters of the current game and then you wonder why we don't just roll over. You have people that deliberatly misquote people or manufacture false facts and we call them on it and we are the ones who are acidic?

Why do you need to warn people? Johan/Paradox has been 100% crystal clear during development that the game was going in this direction. Johan said time and time again that EU2 was a Game not a historical simulation. They have made the game the most moddable ever but for many in your camp its not good enough. You HAVE to know this game IS NOT going in the direction you desire. A direction that was not kept secret a direction that was fully disclosed.

mmmm welcome the first acid man!!!!! OK my fault I didn't read enough the forum before buying the game. If I would read itn well, now I had 56 euro more in my pocket. But by the way I have to know nothing, because customers are not obliged to read all forum and if u read just the presentation in the paradox official site, the new deal is not so clear as you are sayng. Prsopekt in www.paradoplaza.com is totally deceptive, so I warn ppl

Quoting Paradox site:

Europa Universalis III delves deeply into the areas of exploration, trade, warfare and diplomacy. This soon-to-be classic PC Strategy title will be characterized by immense depth and historical content that charge its challenging gameplay with incredible replayability value.

* Players can enjoy over 300 years of gameplay by starting at ANY date between 1453 and 1789.
* Nation building is flexible: decide your own form of government, the structure of your society, trade politics and much more. The possibilities are endless.
* The great people and personalities of the past are on hand to support you. Take history in your hands and call personalities like Sir Isaac Newton, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or René Descartes to your court.

 

[unmerged(39353)]

I think its clear that EU3 isn't the game a big part of us dreamed about.

Its time to ask modders and Paradox's staff a question:

Is there any technical possibility to save the fun of playing EU3 for these who are history geeks?


by implementing events or change game mechanics a bit maybe...

 

[Disclaimer]

I think its clear that EU3 isn't the game a big part of us dreamed about.

Its time to ask modders and Paradox's staff a question:

Is there any technical possibility to save the fun of playing EU3 for these who are history geeks?


by implementing events or change game mechanics a bit maybe...

I am neither with Paradox nor a modder nor a programmer, but what came to mind:

One might create single AI files with modifiers such a “propensity to colonize”, that as a default leave everything unchanged as it is (ie every nation behaves the same in the same situation). Any player unhappy with this could then go about changing these modifiers and thus put “propensity to colonize” at zero for Switzerland for example.

 

[unmerged(2619)]

I am neither with Paradox nor a modder nor a programmer, but what came to mind:

One might create single AI files with modifiers such a “propensity to colonize”, that as a default leave everything unchanged as it is (ie every nation behaves the same in the same situation). Any player unhappy with this could then go about changing these modifiers and thus put “propensity to colonize” at zero for Switzerland for example.

Sorry but this is no more possible. Much events can be re-created, but there are no more AI files to push Ai in an historical direction

 

[unmerged(64049)]

Now this is a very interesting thread with many valid points from both camps.

I wasnt planning on getting EU3 for a long time (due to PC running requirements). However this thread has reminded me why I so longed for EU3 so much in the past and I now feel the need to get it and a better computer FAST.

I think we can all more or less agree that EU2 was/is a fantastic game. However I used to (and still do) hate having to sift through event files to see what I need to do to best benefit my nation, in regards to events, monarchs and leaders. And yes I had to do it, for the better of my nation!!! I would and still do exploit everything (bar from actually cheating) I can to see my nation excell above all others asap! (Cant help it, Im damn gamey)

To think right now of no fixed events frankly excites me, and I am catapulted into action to get the game.

If I start in 1453 as England, I am England damnit! (Flags, bells, whistles and all) And if I choose to annex Denmark, Sweden, Russia and Sibir before vassalizing the Mamluks, I am still England! This is my England! And if an AI England in EU3 chooses to do the same by joe, its still England. Oh what joy and bliss. I dont want to mirror history, I want to build a new English super power and see other nations build theirs. I certainly dont want to watch Portugal conquer Brazil or Austria annex Hungary another 50,000 times.

For those history buffs out there, why not rig up EU2 in some way, so that it all plays out exactly according to history and play hands off as Navaho. Personally I prefer to read a book on the subject.

Thankyou for your insights and reminding me what I really disliked about EU2, even though the game in its time was awesome.

 

[AKjeldsen]

Still the game has outcomes which are not even remotely realistic. Such as Venice colonising the New World or Russia colonising in Africa. That's not "historically plausible" for me ... and it was always Paradox's self-declared goal to produce a game which delivers plausible outcomes rather than just repeating history.

EU3 does neither.

I have yet to see Russia colonize Africa - but Venice in the New World, why not? It's not what happened historically, but that's because the Venetian government had different priorities. But I don't find it implausible that they could have decided to exploit the opportunities in the New World, rather than focus on trade conflicts with Genoa and regional political expansion.

They certainly had more resources available for such a project than Portugal did at first.

 

[unmerged(2619)]

Now this is a very interesting thread with many valid points from both camps.

I wasnt planning on getting EU3 for a long time (due to PC running requirements). However this thread has reminded me why I so longed for EU3 so much in the past and I now feel the need to get it and a better computer FAST.

I think we can all more or less agree that EU2 was/is a fantastic game. However I used to (and still do) hate having to sift through event files to see what I need to do to best benefit my nation, in regards to events, monarchs and leaders. And yes I had to do it, for the better of my nation!!! I would and still do exploit everything (bar from actually cheating) I can to see my nation excell above all others asap! (Cant help it, Im damn gamey)

To think right now of no fixed events frankly excites me, and I am catapulted into action to get the game.

If I start in 1453 as England, I am England damnit! (Flags, bells, whistles and all) And if I choose to annex Denmark, Sweden, Russia and Sibir before vassalizing the Mamluks, I am still England! This is my England! And if an AI England in EU3 chooses to do the same by joe, its still England. Oh what joy and bliss. I dont want to mirror history, I want to build a new English super power and see other nations build theirs. I certainly dont want to watch Portugal conquer Brazil or Austria annex Hungary another 50,000 times.

If u don't want see Portugal conquer Brazil or Austria annex Hungary another 50,000 times, if your game will be totally different from reality why do u want a real map with real countries? To me seeing a flag is not enough to imerge me in a fun historical experience. Flags are only colors..... If I play Spain I wish to build a superpower but if I play Milano or Toscana I wish the game stop me to become a superpower, just because they were only regional power. Now u can choose all countries and u will have always the same gaming experience (the only variables the geography and the fact u will choose a little country or a big one).

 

[unmerged(39353)]

And if an AI England in EU3 chooses to do the same by joe, its still England.

No, its not England. Its computer, AI that just controls red coloured provinces called England, but do not behaves and act like England.

Thats the difference.

 

[unmerged(64717)]

I think its clear that EU3 isn't the game a big part of us dreamed about.

Its time to ask modders and Paradox's staff a question:

Is there any technical possibility to save the fun of playing EU3 for these who are history geeks?


by implementing events or change game mechanics a bit maybe...

i m totally agree with you, and i do the same question to paradox staff and modders....
this could be a new thread!!!!!

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

If u don't want see Portugal conquer Brazil or Austria annex Hungary another 50,000 times, if your game will be totally different from reality why do u want a real map with real countries?

Because he wants to take control at one point in time in "reality" and create a new exciting history, not recreate the same one time and time again?

 

[unmerged(1823)]

No, its not England. Its computer, AI that just controls red coloured provinces called England, but do not behaves and act like England.

Thats the difference.

good description of the AI in eu2.