Lack of historical feeling and atmosphere

[Featauril]

In AGCEEP, though better then vanilla EU2, I felt I was following a script.

For exemple, I played as muscovy and conquered large swathes of lithuanian land... and then I got these events that gave me all the cores for lithuanian provinces I had conquered. I then felt I had done something bad by conquering before I got the event...

So what'd I do? I started a new game, I looked at all the events in the history folder, then waited until I got them before I expanded into lithuania.

AGCEEP, though it still had these "situational" kind-of triggers, was still like playing with a straight-jacket on. I want my initiative to be *rewarded*, not *punished*.

 

[Sekenr]

Like someone very correctly pointed, the scrappage of historical events left the gap that wasn't filled by anything. But additionally I don't understand how someone could like the new system because it actually gives you LESS options than the EUII one. If you don't like the EUII deterministic events - delete them! Play without them. But if I want a deterministic event tied to a specific monarch in EUIII, what do I do? Nothing.

 

[gdo01]

Like someone very correctly pointed, the scrappage of historical events left the gap that wasn't filled by anything. But additionally I don't understand how someone could like the new system because it actually gives you LESS options than the EUII one. If you don't like the EUII deterministic events - delete them! Play without them. But if I want a deterministic event tied to a specific monarch in EUIII, what do I do? Nothing.

Very good point. By giving others freedom do what they want (eventhough possibilities are still limited and things that happen are still sometimes inplausible), they have completely killed any chances of trying to improve the level of historicity even to basic levels (no treaty of tordesillas as I've been told).

 

[King of Men]

Tordesillas never actually worked to give Spain and Portugal their historical dominance of the New World, in any case. But anyway, if the new event system supports dates as triggers, there is certainly nothing stopping you from using it to make deterministic events in the old style; just do

trigger = {date = whenever tag = XYZ}
MTTH = 2 days
effect = {insert historical King}

Voila! Deterministic rulers! So, you have the option.

 

[Featauril]

I too feel there is not enough events in EU3 ; however, I am hoping for modders to put in more events / putting in historical events specific to nations.

However, I do hope for no straightjackets in the form of AGCEEP. I don't want to have to memorise the events so I don't end up doing stupid things, I.E. conquering a country that's going to be inherited by me anyway, etc..

 

[Markusw7]

Tordesillas never actually worked to give Spain and Portugal their historical dominance of the New World, in any case. But anyway, if the new event system supports dates as triggers, there is certainly nothing stopping you from using it to make deterministic events in the old style; just do

trigger = {date = whenever tag = XYZ}
MTTH = 2 days
effect = {insert historical King}

Voila! Deterministic rulers! So, you have the option.

You cant insert kings though

 

[King of Men]

Oh. Well, that's a little unfortunate, but if I know Pdox, it'll be added later.

 

[Arilou]

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'm not disappointed, because this was, more or less, what I was talking about since the announcement of the game. Lo and behold my predictions came true.

Not to be too hard on EU3: Had it been any other game than EU3 I'd probably have liked it.

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

I agree with some people in that so far I think that the game feels somewhat flavourless; in many ways, it feels more like Imperialism 3 than EU3. But I haven't played much yet, so I'll save a more informed opinion for later.

One thing that concerns me, and that I'd like to ask people who've played more, is how often are Spain, Great Britain, Russia or the Netherlands actually forming? And how good is France at absorbing its various vassals and becoming a unified block?

 

[Corbett]

This sort of game strikes me as something that would be excellent to play multiplayer. I've only read the AARs thus far, but I bet that a bunch of humans thrown into a nondeterministic would would lead to a great deal of enjoyment.

 

[unmerged(18511)]

That 'X-factor' is the graphics. Have been playing it for almost 2 hours now after buying it earlier this evening and frankly, I'm disappointed.

I honestly don't know why Paradox made the game map this way; I don't think it's very appealing. In fact it's ugly: the straight lines depicting provinces make the game look like something on my Amiga500 from 1989... The colouring and the shading too are horrible. (And don't think it's my card or hardware setup... ATi X1950Pro 256MB here and yes, with latest drivers.)

I'm also playing Medieval II: Total War and Civilization IV atm and man, those games look good compared to EU3.

Want that 'historical X-factor' feeling? Load up on Medieval II: Total War, I'd say.

And why oh why did Paradox go back to the 1492-1789 time frame? I would have LOVED being able to play Napoleon's France until 1821...

 

[Ming]

This sort of game strikes me as something that would be excellent to play multiplayer. I've only read the AARs thus far, but I bet that a bunch of humans thrown into a nondeterministic would would lead to a great deal of enjoyment.

I bet you're right. The deterministic events always made multiplayer kind of wonky.

Still though, I wish there were more historical events, or at least historically flavored events that were vague about rulers and nations receiving them that were appropriate to the context.

 

[Arilou]

Want that 'historical X-factor' feeling? Load up on Medieval II: Total War, I'd say.

Sorry but now. Medieval is as bad as EU3 in that regard.

 

[Mork]

Sorry but now. Medieval is as bad as EU3 in that regard.

M:TW2 is awful. They removed several features from R:TW, and still managed to introduce near game breaking bugs (like two handers not attacking, shields actually making it easier to be attacked in melee, and so on). A very poor job from CA. Especially on the patching. Those bugs should never have left QA.

What I would wish for was that PI just made it possible for some static events like a certain king or some such. That way we could mod us a game the way we want it.
I miss the events from EUII. It was that which made EUII great. It had the x-factor in spades, something which EUIII lacks (And I do disagree that graphics is the x-factor. GFraphics is graphics. The x-factor is that little something extra).
However, EUIII is still better than M:TW2.

 

[Belissarius]

"First impressions: lack of historical feeling and atmosphere" I have to disagree completely with your opinion. i found playing as England in the demo was a real pleasure. I found it hugely historical more so than in EU2. In EU2 I never feared france. But france has kicked my ass three times in the demo. England had real fears about invasion from france and later spain. I found that I had teh same worries and concerns as England in that time period. I also found that while i didnt get the same sequence of events/wars/problems the atmosphere was very much the same as in history. I also found that when i went protestant I had real concerns with french retaliation. They DOW on me was a nightmare. It took every thing I had to keep the RN up to snuff and stop teh invasion and even then I failed forcing me to pull trooops from teh north against scotland to deal with it.

People are too hidebound to history. Time and time again Johan has said this is a game not s simulation. Blind following of history isnt what the game is about its about providing similar issues for all nations that resulted in problems in our history like the lowlands revolutions, religious wars of france colonial uprisings. All these are now possible for ALL nations not just the ones that had them in history. Being spain and getting wars of religion in france is excieting to me and adds to historical atmosphere because I have the same problems as in history not blind deterministic events that have no rational reason for the curent games "history".

What people can no longer do is pick a nation at 1453 and know that they will get a specific type of problems in the future. but you can choose to start the game during those problems to play out the desired situation. What people can do is expect that any nation might get the proplems that other nations had in histroy based on THIER actions as palyers. That is eciting more than boring deterministic events that I learned to antisapate after so many years of playing EU2. I knew exactly what to do as England and the Turks because I played them so often. i automaticly prepare to take advantage of possitive events and do what I can to mitigate the negative ones because i know they are comming. Now that isnt possible I have to be prepared to any thing and thats more enjoyable than determinism.

Also from what i have seen every major event in Europe's history is not possible with the EU3's event engine. Some things has been missed like the ability for Brandenburg to assume the title of Prussia but not the ability of Brandenburg to inherit prussia. And I'm sure that Paradox will fix this over sight with a tag change event in the future. The key here is that its only a cometic change thats needed the actual ability to merge brandenburg with prussia is possible. Since any major event is possible as well as some minor ones what exactly about this eliminates the historical atmosphere? The lack of determinism?

 

[unmerged(13570)]

None i am aware of. And, to add some spice: Winged Hussar unit is available from 1675 on :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

This is really strange, I think that the reason may be that the date is perfectly in the middle between 1670 and 1680 :rofl:

 

[unmerged(2619)]

Since any major event is possible as well as some minor ones what exactly about this eliminates the historical atmosphere? The lack of determinism?

To me founding Venetia in Caribbean or Mackleburg at Table eliminate the historical atmosphere. Because I know the history and I know that in XVI century Venice faced totally different problem, different from Caribbean colonization. So If I see that I don't feel to be in an historical game.
The best of EU2 was to be involved in those different kind of historical problems, different from country to country.

I don't want a game-photocopy of real history, but I want a game historical-oriented where events push in an historical direction where each country have to face their own historical troubles. This of course can have unhistorical outputs (and also in Eu2 it was so). I find the fun in those EU2 pseudo-historical outputs, much much more than in these EU3 fantasy-risiko outputs

 

[Sol Invictus]

Played the demo but I haven't bought the game yet, though I certainly will. I think I will like EUIII better than EUII because the events are not hardcoded no matter the situation. It looks like the main problems so far are that inheritance of countries happens a bit to often and colonization is a bit spazmodic. These seem like very easy problems to fix/mod. looking forward to getting the game.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

Is the game "historical" in the sense that everything happens just as it did in real life? No.

Is the game "historical" in the sense that the player is confronted with some of the uncertainty that confounded the historical actors? Yes.

I've never understood the notion that a game is "realistic" only if it plays out in a way that allows the player to rely on 20/20 hindsight to mimic the historical outcome. Better, in my mind, to try to recreate the sense of uncertainty that has plagued every real-world leader since the beginning of time.

 

[minority]

What is "Historical Feeling"?

Some people like to roleplay and imagine a different world albeit with real characters from our own timeline.

Some people like to roleplay and imagine a different world, yet still plausible, and with history totally knocked off its footing in that people who existed within our own timeline would never have been borned.

Both can be said to haev a historical feel to it.

It's all a personal experience. But although I like it this way, I do understand the hope by some people that Paradox would give them the right modding tools to get the game to be more to their liking.

cheers