My hopes are that there will be possibilities to mod the game to the degree to get a similar feeling like in the AGCEEP mod for EU2. If something along that lines is possible within the engine Ill be happy.
MTW vs EU3
- Thread starter unmerged(62078)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
arcorelli said:
Because that is Europa Universalis. The game was unique because of that, its rigid historical events... Because of that I loved it, because of that I like Vicky and HOI too. And, to the best of my knowlegde, you were quite adicted to EU2...
Becephalus said:
Are we talking about the same games??? RTW was far more moddable than EU2 was, and a heck of a lot easier to get the effect you were shooting for. EU2 was defined by the fact that 99% WASN'T moddable - a flaw that EU3 looks like it's fixing.
Historical detail, perhaps, but not gameplay. And the TW series isn't geared to making history buffs giddy over the details, but to allowing people to have fun slugging it out on the tactical battlefield. The series focuses on something that EU3 doesn't address even in passing.
Somehow I doubt this. I doubt even more you'll be able to get budget figures from either company (or branch, in RTW's case).
This is definitely a matter of opinion. I thought both games were pretty unplayable in their vanilla state and had to do extensive modding to get them up to what I'd consider my minimal standard. It took me far less time to do that with RTW than with EU2, although at the end of the day the idiot AIs for both games eventually led me to stop playing them.
XCOM is definitely in my top 5 all time though, so at least we have some common ground.
They definitely don't make them like that anymore.
Here's the thing, when all is said and done at the end of the day. I still own BAK and Fallout and Fallout 2; I threw out Morrowind and Oblivion and Neverwinter and all the other schlock that came after. I still own Alpha Centauri but do I have EU2 or either HOI or that abomination we call Civ 4? Nope, I surely don't.
I'm hoping EU3 is one of those games that I keep around forever, comparing it to everything that comes after. From the designer diaries, it just might be such a game.
Max
RTW easy to mod? when you cannot even change simple things like the number of people who are enslaved or how many of them survive getting sent back to towns (hardcoded to 100%)? Which of course leads to rampant overpopulation and economic overheating like 20 turns into the damn game. you would think people who understand math enough to learn a programming language would understand the effect of compound interest on growth.
No Naval AI improvement abilities whatsoever that I could see. The only way to improve AI was to play with the movement/combat values and costs and try to manipulate the AI into using them correctly. IDK how many really simple and good changes to the game were unable to be made because they were hardcoded. I woudl say we had a thread with at least 100.
Yes the interface and map and units were easily moddable, but the background mechanics were not at all IIRC.
The tactical battles were worthless to me other than MP. I honestly thought it was impossible to lose to the AI in that game. Unless you were outnumbered like 5 or 10 to 1 you would win, and sieges were impossible to lose at any odds almost. The tactical combat engine isn't working when someone like me who wasn't great or anything could run a campaing going 400:3 in battles. Hell by the third time I played it I resolved to only autoresolve battles (ANother hardcoded element was the horrible autoresolve algorithm).
IDK I kind of see it as two separate games niether of which is good enough to stand on its own. A single player strategy game with an AI completely out of synch with the rest of the production values. And a multiplayer tactical combat game without enough options to make it shine standing alone.
Mods made the game decent, and it had great flavor, but i think i am just frustrated because I seems like with a more concientious development and 3 or 4 more omnths the game could have been one for the ages. Instead they know they have already maximized sales and just release it as is. Goddamn teenagers skewing the market.
Heh yeah Fallouts and Xcom etc. did so much more with less. Morrowind was a joke, another game with radically unbalanced production values. Just trying to play straight through the story you are all maxed out before you are halfway through...yeah thats fun. I think that game was designed for people who cannot read or something.
I couldn't agree more
No Naval AI improvement abilities whatsoever that I could see. The only way to improve AI was to play with the movement/combat values and costs and try to manipulate the AI into using them correctly. IDK how many really simple and good changes to the game were unable to be made because they were hardcoded. I woudl say we had a thread with at least 100.
Yes the interface and map and units were easily moddable, but the background mechanics were not at all IIRC.
The tactical battles were worthless to me other than MP. I honestly thought it was impossible to lose to the AI in that game. Unless you were outnumbered like 5 or 10 to 1 you would win, and sieges were impossible to lose at any odds almost. The tactical combat engine isn't working when someone like me who wasn't great or anything could run a campaing going 400:3 in battles. Hell by the third time I played it I resolved to only autoresolve battles (ANother hardcoded element was the horrible autoresolve algorithm).
IDK I kind of see it as two separate games niether of which is good enough to stand on its own. A single player strategy game with an AI completely out of synch with the rest of the production values. And a multiplayer tactical combat game without enough options to make it shine standing alone.
Mods made the game decent, and it had great flavor, but i think i am just frustrated because I seems like with a more concientious development and 3 or 4 more omnths the game could have been one for the ages. Instead they know they have already maximized sales and just release it as is. Goddamn teenagers skewing the market.
maxpublic said:
Heh yeah Fallouts and Xcom etc. did so much more with less. Morrowind was a joke, another game with radically unbalanced production values. Just trying to play straight through the story you are all maxed out before you are halfway through...yeah thats fun. I think that game was designed for people who cannot read or something.
I couldn't agree more
Last edited:
Casluerj said:
Agreed on this. The fun of Eu2 and other Paradox games was that there were these events directing nations towards what they really did, so that while not everything was runing on perfect historical accuracy (keeping you on your toes for any surprises) you could at least count on some givens, and feel that you're playing in the time-line you know.
I fear that now 80% of GCs will have totaly unrecognizable situations around 1640, making the whole thing feel like Civ or so.
A clear exemple is the "leaders die if they die in combat" thing... Portugal needs one of it's Kings to die in combat to start the whole "Spanish Domination" sequence, wich had major political and economical importance to us... if now that will need that leader to die as part of a game mechanic, all that's needed is for Portugal NOT to send him out to marroco and PUFF! a great big problem solved, for no price what-so-ever.
But then again I always was a pessimist, so this doesn't mean much
While I agree that the historical events were fun (and educational), I think the greater charm of EU2 is the power to shape history plausibly.
How about a Britanny that shrewdly forges alliances to defeat the french, and later becomes a colonial power? A Poland that subjugates Russia? What about Bohemia? Hungary? Novgorod? Genoa? Bavaria?
How about a Britanny that shrewdly forges alliances to defeat the french, and later becomes a colonial power? A Poland that subjugates Russia? What about Bohemia? Hungary? Novgorod? Genoa? Bavaria?
Changes propagating and becoming greater with time is the only proper thing if you want realism. A province exchange early could easily be a huge change in the long term. Civ isn't plausible in any fashion, I wouldn't want it, and we won't see it.th3freakie said:
EU3 is going to be great. But, yea, it won't follow what happened in actual history. Don't expect any grand campaign game to resemble the actual map of Europe in lets say 1750. If you want to play a game with a map set up like a certain year, you should start in that year.
I will buy Medieval 2 and EU3, but I bet that when EU4 comes out I will still be playing EU3 but not Medieval 2. EU RULES LONG TIME!!!
DukeWilleo1630 said:EU3 is going to be great. But, yea, it won't follow what happened in actual history. Don't expect any grand campaign game to resemble the actual map of Europe in lets say 1750. If you want to play a game with a map set up like a certain year, you should start in that year.
Has anyone had a GC game in EU2 that ended historically?
No, never.Gaute65 said:
Even if I left Europe alone (as I do sometimes when I play as the CSA) the map is totally wrecked from a historical point of view because of the AI.
Not that I mind at all, I like ahistorical outcomes.
maxpublic said:
Fallout was great! (and I'm still playing Alpha Centauri now - what’s BAK?)
I love EU2 the only grumbles I've got were the so few events for minor countries, hopefully this'll be fixed for EU3. I know its not CIV but I always wish there was more infrastructure type things you could build (not just manus etc) as EU always feels as if you have to war eventually - I like to colonise or expand through diplomacy. I hear in EU3 you can buy/sell provinces? that will be excellent if so.
This is a weird 'discussion'... TeeWee is right on the money with his comparison of the games.
Besides, gamers are hit with charmless and unoriginal games en masse in the RTS, FPS and sports genres so often I'm almost embarrased to peruse the titles displayed in the game shops... Then *two* cool (based on their prequels) strategy games with an historical theme are announced and people complain about which is better (before having played either one on top of it all).. oh the madness..
We should be happy as hell both these games are around the corner, they are a few and far between.
Besides, gamers are hit with charmless and unoriginal games en masse in the RTS, FPS and sports genres so often I'm almost embarrased to peruse the titles displayed in the game shops... Then *two* cool (based on their prequels) strategy games with an historical theme are announced and people complain about which is better (before having played either one on top of it all).. oh the madness..
We should be happy as hell both these games are around the corner, they are a few and far between.
Casluerj said:
Not due to insane and non-sensical vanilla events
It was a good game with nice mechanics about the XV-XVIII centuries. That was the interesting thing. If that is improved, then better.
It creates unreasonable obstacles. Historical majors get loads of beneficial events, and historical minors/losers get the stick.th3freakie said:
Which is why you can start a game at any date. I like that idea - pick up at any time in history, and play it out how you like from that point.th3freakie said:
Playing "like history" may be amusing for a bit, but I always find myself wanting more. I want choices, I don't like being railroaded for no other reason than that it happened like that in history.
Gaute65 said:
It occasionaly does, with the exception of Germany where 'em City-States are inevitably gobbled up by France/Austria/Sweden/England. Otherwise, I already had my "historical ending" with France, England, Spain, Portugal, Austria roughly what they were in real life. Russia was somewhat cut short and so was Prussia. But compared to other games it ended quite historically.
Araanor said:
As AGCEEP Byzantium shows, it's quite easy to add alternative history events taht trigger during certain conditions. If there's a will there's a way.
So what if I want to fight the Thirty Years War as a united Scandinavia rather than Sweden? If I start in the 1600's, there's too little time to unite the north. If I start in 1450's, there won't be any Thirty Years War at all so my preparation has gone to waste.
You have choices, everything you do in the game is choose. However, just because you guide your nation to an alternative route, why should all the other powers be possessed by randomizing ghosts?
If you thought the events were destroying your EU2 experience, then all you had to do was to delete them. Problem solved. However, if I want to recreate the "spirit of EU2" in EU3, I have a shitload of modding to do(which still won't be entirely sufficient since everything isn't moddable).
I understand that you want to play a different game than I do. But please consider that from my PoV, I may be losing the only "semi-linear-history" game there is in favor of yet another open-ended game(better than the rest, but still).