Lack of historical feeling and atmosphere

[unmerged(27392)]

let's hope we get an mod such as AGCEEP

 

[unmerged(12699)]

After playing EU2 for along time, and nothing but EU2 (only vs AI tho)... I can understand where this discussion comes from.

At first and for a great part still today, I'm enjoying EU3 a great deal. I got used to the map, love the interface, like the new features and again am enjoying the music alot. But as time goes by I'm starting to miss the events.

Still I give Paradox alot of credit for their new game, it runs great, looks great (IMO) and has got me really excited again (I never got into HOI and never tried Vicky or CK).

To those that are missing the historical events (I do too,but it's a great game nonetheless), I can only say hang in there and I'm sure the everactive modding community will provide !

 

[crash63]

let's hope we get an mod such as AGCEEP

It's probable, You will never have a mod like the AGCEEP.

 

[Garbon]

let's hope we get an mod such as AGCEEP

I don't think it would really make sense. Since eu3 is not about encouraging historical outcomes but rather historically possible ones, an AGCEEP mod for eu3 would be like trying to force a square block into a circular opening.

 

[unmerged(14393)]

I guess this type of new Paradox "unhistoric" game also kills the ancient community dream of series of games, starting in the 15 th century where you guide your nation through the pre modern times, forming a colonial empire, then surviving Napoleon...plunging head first into the age of industralisation, and finally digging your way through the barb wires in WW1 eventually ending up with the last and final gory round that was nazism vs. communism?

Unless they opt to go for a civilization type of experience full throttle?

 

[unmerged(63312)]

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.

Agreed. The current system in EUIII allows for the creation of your countries own unique history.

 

[unmerged(514)]

I don't think it would really make sense. Since eu3 is not about encouraging historical outcomes but rather historically possible ones, an AGCEEP mod for eu3 would be like trying to force a square block into a circular opening.

If the circle is larger than the square block...

 

[Garbon]

If the circle is larger than the square block...

It'll still be a poor fit.

 

[unmerged(52731)]

I as the Ottoman Empire formed a royal marriage with the Dukadir, small tribal despotism of 2 provinces, my leader died and I now find myself a vassal of the Dukadir and in a personal union with them for an unspecified period of time, meaning I cannot engineer wars to expand for that period, little unrealistic.

How is that unrealistic? I admit the small size of Dukadir makes it unlikely, but given the correct atmosphere its very possible. And, more importantly, it adds to the challenge. Don't think of it as a flaw in the game, consider it a challenge, because thats what it is.

 

[SirGrotius]

How annying is it to have Gustav II Adolf get killed 1632 if you are at peace at the time.

Agreed. I like the dynamic events, and if anything, I'd like to see more of them and conditions such as the Sound Toll for Denmark.

 

[Garbon]

How is that unrealistic? I admit the small size of Dukadir makes it unlikely, but given the correct atmosphere its very possible. And, more importantly, it adds to the challenge. Don't think of it as a flaw in the game, consider it a challenge, because thats what it is.

That dog won't hunt, unless you want to say that everything that is unliked in a game is a "challenge."

 

[Arilou]

I liked EU2, and I don't think EU3 is a worthy successor (although it is a good enough game in it's own right)

That said, that is water under the bridge. All I can do is hope that EU4 is a better game (I think they also need a slightly longer development-cycle.... WHile the game is a far sight better than EU2 it still has major problems and is in need of improvements (AUTOSEND MERCHANTS! WHYYYY!!!????))

If Paradox is going to have a probabilistic (It's not "Historical" as it doesen't follow history, not "Conditional" as in most cases there is an element of randomness and not just a matter of fulfilling certain criteria, it is not "Random" because there are conditions to meet to get certain results....) events-system there's still a lot of improvements: Cultural or even nation-specific events for instance (Right now nations "feel" to similar, I've been playing 200 years as England and *there is nothing that makes me feel that I'm playing England* and not say... France, or China) Events for breaking down overstretched empires (if they exist they don't seem to work: Malacca owns all of South-East asia for me. They're HUGE) AI that actually tries to gang up on a nation that becomes too strong (and most importantly, that is willing to ask for "Release nation"... If France Inherits Spain the ROTW should be buggering them to release Spain posthaste)

Also, what buggers me the most is the fact that Paradox *Didn't let us mod the game*. A simple "Create Monarch with stats of X and lifespan of Y" would have worked. Same thing with generals. It almost seems like Paradox made a defcision that "OUR WAY IS THE ONLY WAY THE GAME SHOULD BE PLAYED! MWHAHAHA!!!"

Okay, not quite, but almost.

These two commands would solve 70% of all the gripes I have with the game. (The rest are stuff for patching and such, and Autosend merchants... That one was just plain bizarre)

 

[Zhou Yu]

I really enjoy EU3, and would not contemplate going back to play EU2. That said, there are two things which, in my opinion, makes EU2 the superior product:

1) The Historical Events. When playing a historical game I want history to be the same, except where I (the player) changes it. The reason I say this is because I want to feel as though I am interacting with the history that I know. It's true that the deterministic path has many flaws, but it I find it to be more enjoyable.

2) The music. Again, feeding into my general desire to interact with history, I much preferred actual historical music. I really like the ambience, and, again, the immersion.

 

[Elijah]

Firing up the game, I can totally see where some people are dissapointed. The game itself is definitely superior, but its lost the character of EU2. Its more of a great 'sandbox' game now where in one sense anything goes, an easily moddable framework rather than a great game in its own right. Its almost like getting a great game engine without much content or storyline...Certain elements have been greatly improved, and the game should be a better MP game, and new event engine has better potential than the old style...

All this being said, I don't find playing single player very engaging, but I think its as much just having played the original so many times that playing the AI has lost its savour as anything being wrong with it.

 

[unmerged(14393)]

(Right now nations "feel" to similar, I've been playing 200 years as England and *there is nothing that makes me feel that I'm playing England* and not say... France, or China)

Mhm. I think this is a huge problem.

For me, EU 3 is more a multiple small scenarios type of game.
I can´t even imagine playing out a sand box game like this for several hours.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

I really hope I don't offend anyone with my next statement and that it's taken the right way. I find the whole argument that the EU2 events happened with historically implausible circumstances and therefore we need the engine to handle historical events differently to be just plain silly and IMO it demonstrates a great degree of ignorance on the part of EU2/EU3 players as to how modding actually works.

First of all this is a ficticious scenario. EU2 has a colossal amount of specific triggers that can be used for historical events. If they are not in a given event, it is not because the engine is crappy, it is because those historical events could have been scripted better and weren't.

Go look through the historical event files of EP or AGCEEP, you'll find plenty of specific triggers, forbidding historical events from firing in historically ilogical circumstances. Furthermore if you post in the appropriate threads for those mods you'll find that the modders for them are more than happy to add even more specific triggers to make those historical events happen in only logical circumstances.

It is not easy to fathom every variable of what could be the in-game circumstances when an event should fire. But they can indeed be and often were in EU2 events.

Another thing I'm reading in this thread is that everyone is so confident that the modders of EU2 are going to fix the let downs of EU3. And who are these modders? You mean the ones who modded EU2 to be more historical and are as bummed out as I am that historical leaders, historical monarchs, some of the types of historical events, and the historical AI files cannot be in EU3? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news EU3 fans but the EU2 historical modders are for the most part bummed NOT thrilled about the modding for EU3. You're gonna need a new generation of modders who don't mind modding history into EU3, even though their ability to do so is much less than in EU2.

 

[Icy]

Not an inheritance, but a silly event.

I as the Ottoman Empire formed a royal marriage with the Dukadir, small tribal despotism of 2 provinces, my leader died and I now find myself a vassal of the Dukadir and in a personal union with them for an unspecified period of time, meaning I cannot engineer wars to expand for that period, little unrealistic.

Just commenting this issue you had. I guess you formed a royal marriage with the Dukadir to later diploanex them, but the inopportune death of your leader plus having royal marriage with them, made you to lose your country reign. I don't see it as unrealistic as you do, when you are offering a royal marriage, you are mixing your royal blood with the other party, it means that the descendants of that marriage will have a line of inheritance to your reign, so this means that we need to be more cautious with who we offer the royal marriages, as it happened in real life.

In resume, you complain because the game did something unrealistic, when in fact the game just answered on a realistic way to your unrealistic approach, a powerful king wouldn't mix his family's royal blood with a random minor country at the risk of loosing his empire later because inheritances.

I think this is the beauty of the new system, it reacts to what you do instead of just wait for events to be triggered.

I liked the EUII system more, as the historical events made it different from other strategic games, but slowly I'm starting to like the new system and if the mods can add historical events to it, I'll be in heaven.

 

[gdo01]

How is it realistic for Dulkadir to be the commanding party in that situation? I hardly think any Ottoman nobles would like being subjugated to a Dulkadir sultan ruling from Dulkadir. I'm pretty sure thats the reason why George I of Great Britain did not rule Britain from Hannover even though he was in his right to. Thats not realistic, a regency or ruling the more powerful country would be much more likely.

Edit:
As for your mod request. I see much of your talk about how dynamic EU3 is runs counter to the suggestion of lots of historic events. As the poster's example above, what if Dulkadir inherits the Ottomans? What events are there for Dulkadir? What AI is there for Dulkadir? Will Dulkadir expand like the Ottomans would have or will it just sit there like the real life Dulkadir did?

I welcome the greater variety EU3 gives but until the game engine can handle things as an accurate world simulator (note I don't mean a history simulator), the game will have to depend on events to make situations realistic.

 

[jpezli]

I have to agree with several posters and have come to a conclusion that EU3 is boring and lacks the atmosphere EU2 has. I am honestly disappointed and regret spending the money to buy the game, unless some mod comes and makes my investment worth the money.

I've played about 200 years as Scotland and France and with both games I've gained a lot of badboy as I keep declaring wars just so I have at least something interesting to do.

 

[lordy80011]

The current system in EUIII allows for the creation of your countries own unique history.

In a sense, but there is also the legitimate point that the "feel" of nations in the game are more similar than they were in EU2, which is a bit of a shame.

I agree that the deterministic events could be very irritating, but there was also a lot of flavor that is no longer present in the game.

Ah well. I actually have more issues with the interface than the gameplay itself.