System Lord said:
Hmm well if the game isnt going to include the great figures of history then why even set it in Europe? Why not make a totally fanciful world with a purple sky and blue grass?
If its to be a game based on history yet you pick and choose what pieces to include whats the whole point hmm? The logic of this move by paradox escapes me and at this stage I wont be buyng this game as its gone down the road of a civilisation and has abandoned that which made eu2 and hoi so great its historical truth.
tut tut...
I understand why they want it to be variable; because Eu1 and Eu2 proved that the game rarely turns out "historically" - however I believe that even in alternate worlds such as one where Elizabeth agreed to her sisters wish to convert to Catholicism in most cases the "historical" line of Royalty would still be in power.
Thats why I thought that Paradox was going to do it the way I posted in my first post; because its the way that makes most sense to me.
Having completely random monarchs makes having historical leaders and figures in the game meaningless and contradictory.
Whats the point in being historically accurate at all? Why pick and choose where you want to conform to history and where you dont?
If Paradox is saying that the famous leaders would still arise such as Leonardo Da Vinci no matter what the happens in the "alt-history" we create in game (which by including these historical figures in game they ARE saying) then surely the same should apply to Monarchs?
I understand and agree there should be Variation; such as Leo Da Vinci becoming a servant of the Holy Roman Emperor instead of the various Italian Dukes; hence the randomness - but I and apparently many others disagree with the move to make it TOTALLY random.
It doesnt correlate with the rest of the game...
It seems to me that Paradox is trying to please too many parties with too many wishes instead of putting together a coherent and solid game.
My advise to Paradox is YOU CAN NOT PLEASE EVERYONE; and do what makes the game good not what makes the "fans" happy - because frankly the fans will bitch no matter what, may as well spend the time productively.
Unfortunately I can already envisage the response to this post; and the many other posts of this nature; it will be similar to as follows:
Either -
"Paradox is returning to the original tenets of a barely recognised and heard of Board Game (Because let us speak frankly - most of us will have never heard of the EU Board Game before we bought Eu2). We are completely committed to ignoring the fact that our own Europa Universalis computer games are far more famous and better to play than the Board Game. This is to please the fans who want the game to play JUSt LIKE the Board Game. We are also committed to pleasing the rest of our newbie money paying fans - so we have introduced a series of contradictory features so that no one can complain. The result will be a game that has everything everyone wants and will play like a computer board game."
Or -
"We have decided on doing it the way we have because we have decided to please ALL Parties involved. If you dont like it we have included the ability to Mod the game to your pleasure. EVERYTHING is moddable. So quit bitching."
BORING!
I hate Diplomacy? Every single incarnation of the damn thing on PC ive absolutely hated - and ive made the mistake of buying everyone.
Why? Because I kept hoping that the next one would get better - play better, have better AI, better options, better graphics, better UI.
It never did. Why? Because developers never added their own touch to it; all they did was port the Board Game onto the PC - that was it.
I dont want to play a Board Game on PC; they are god damn BORING. Board Games are only fun because of the interaction you have with other HUMAN players.
Which is why Diplomacy is only good on Multiplayer Online.
Going doing the road of "returning to the Board Game" is a completely mental idea; and it will kill the EU series dead if it contines.
Paradox needs to ask itself why Europa Universalis the Computer Game is bigger, better, and more famous than Europa Universalis the Board Game.
Also id like to take this opportunity to say that it drive me flipping bonkers that the official response to a lot of legitimate concerns by the fandom and players is this: "Its Moddable".
I hate that; the fact that its Moddable doesnt give you license to create a Bad Game - take the lesson of Master of Orion 3. There was a game that upon release was frighteningly BAD; the developers tried too hard to please everyone instead of focusing on creating a playable game that the game was indeed almost unplayable to start with. It took many players months of modding to create PLAYER CREATED PATCHES to make the game playable.
I dont want this to happen to EU3. But it seems to me like its a very real danger because a lot of the official response is "its moddable". MoO3 was moddable and fans abandoned that game in droves!
