Unite Scandinavia, wait until 1618, declare war on all the German states and fight them for thirty years.
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.
Unite Scandinavia, wait until 1618, declare war on all the German states and fight them for thirty years.
das said:
Will there be anything remotely resembling 1618 Germany left after 1½ century of randomness? Will I get the proper events? Will I have Gustaf II Adolf leading my armies? Et cetera. Sure, I could do what you suggest, but if my intent is to enjoy a largely historical 30YW, minus the alterations to the north, then I would be better off with historical events and monarchs rather than increased randomness, no?
Raczynski said:
exactly. Austria gets an event to convert some protestants and sweden gets another event that give them a Free Dow. and, um, that's it.
since neither sides likely has cores on eachother, absolutely nothing stops either party from peacing out in two months for 32 GP. war ovah.
Varyar said:
Changes does not take place in a vacuum. A united scandinavia with nothing else in europe or for that matter the world would be so implausible that it's not even funny...
By uniting scandinavia you've changed a part of the very fabric that brought forth the thirty years war. The whole idea that you can start at one date and take a nation down an ahistorical path while the rest of the world stays frozen and refuse to react is quite strange to say the least...
Would Austria have dared to persue their policies in Germany had there been a large, mighty and stable protestant power in the north?
A few small though important details would also be very different, the Dutch would for instance be dead against Scandinavia gaining any more influence in the baltic sea (but then again the growing scandinavian super power would probably have fought a few wars against them allready anyway in order to form...).
Raczynski said:
Yep. I am not sure how people laments the loss of something that never existed in the game. You never played any of the big wars of the XVII-XVIII century if you started in the GC. The EU2 system was not historical.
Raczynski said:
I'm aware of that. It's just a random example, which could be replaced with any EU2 event-scripted conflict you wish, such as the Great Northern War, War of Spanish Succession, Turko-Hungarian war in the 1520's, etc.
Arcorelli said:
I would certainly have appreciated an event sequence for, par example, the 30KW in similar style to AGCEEP's HYW. And just because EU2 might not have been historical, there's not automatically a reason to say "to hell with history" and further decrease the historical value of the game.
Trin Tragula said:
Obviously not. But there's a difference between a player making certain changes, that cause ripples in the historical waters(another important colonial competitor for example), and some kind of chaos theory game where one measly unhistorical province exchange turns Europe upside down.
Regarding a united Scandinavia, I doubt it would've caused such a major difference among Europe's great powers. Don't forget that Denmark also fought in the 30YW but got smacked(even if not fighting simultaneously with Sweden).
Not frozen, but react within reason. Small changes shouldn't cause more than small reactions. Which leads us to EU3's possible capability as a simulator. It cannot possibly simulate every important aspect that changes correctly, thus randomness increases. Nightmare example is CK, which was a fun game but lacked most of the history appeal that EU2 has.
I wouldn't mind a dynamic game without "straight-jackets", IF I would get a largely historical result when playing historically.
That would depend on the Scandinavian policies. United, it would be strong enough to largely monopolize Baltic trade if so desired, but it could just as well have pursued a more open policy. And, during that time a lot of dutch trade was shifting away from the old areas to new colonial ones. Being excluded from the Baltics might've pissed off the dutch, but with other alternatives available their priorities would've shifted. Sure, they might still have chosen to side with the Emperor, but it was a war of religion after all.
France, OTOH, would probably still have supported the distant power against her enemies.
Both games will kick alot of butt, and I know I'll buy both.
Heres my take on it: If I were given acopy of EU3 and MTW2 at the same time, MTW2 would be the first game to be installed in.
However, based on my exsperience with EU2, EU3 will be on my computer much longer. While MTW2 has the bonus of great graphics, controls over battles, and the such, EU3 is one of those games I can sit down and play for a few hours throughout the week while relaxing.
Like with Rome: Total War, I played that game for 6 months or so, but I kept Eu2 on my computer for 2 years roughly.
More game for your cash.
Heres my take on it: If I were given acopy of EU3 and MTW2 at the same time, MTW2 would be the first game to be installed in.
However, based on my exsperience with EU2, EU3 will be on my computer much longer. While MTW2 has the bonus of great graphics, controls over battles, and the such, EU3 is one of those games I can sit down and play for a few hours throughout the week while relaxing.
Like with Rome: Total War, I played that game for 6 months or so, but I kept Eu2 on my computer for 2 years roughly.
More game for your cash.
Confused
As a "medium-size" history buff and sometime EU player, I don't get what the "historical" argument is about.
So EUIII will give us more randomized events, in an attempt to widen the game and to undercut historical anomalies (like the 1-province Austria land inheritance), but we have the possibility to play from Historical Year X if we want? And this is bad because...?
I guess what I'm wondering is, why play a game that plays EXACTLY like history? Why not just read a history book then (and maybe dress up like your favorite monarch
)? I'm not trying to pee on the people concerned about EUIII's historical accuracy. Rather, it reads like some people want the game to be as historically accurate as possible besides what they themselves bring to the game by playing. Thus, there must be a James I, or a Spanish Succession, or a subjugation of Poland, and it must happen exactly when it did in history or the game sucks. Well, unless *I* am playing Poland, then if the game isn't accurate because I prevent Poland's partitioning then it's a great game.
I'm not a modder, and I don't play EU religiously like many here (and more power to you, gamer gods that you are). But I find it interesting that Paradox trying to give the game an internal logic as opposed to an exoskeleton of historic events is considered dumbing down. And if EUIII gives a pretty decent amount of choice to stick with historical events (which may be what this argument is about: that might not exist) then why not just play to your preferred level of actual history?
As a "medium-size" history buff and sometime EU player, I don't get what the "historical" argument is about.
So EUIII will give us more randomized events, in an attempt to widen the game and to undercut historical anomalies (like the 1-province Austria land inheritance), but we have the possibility to play from Historical Year X if we want? And this is bad because...?
I guess what I'm wondering is, why play a game that plays EXACTLY like history? Why not just read a history book then (and maybe dress up like your favorite monarch
)? I'm not trying to pee on the people concerned about EUIII's historical accuracy. Rather, it reads like some people want the game to be as historically accurate as possible besides what they themselves bring to the game by playing. Thus, there must be a James I, or a Spanish Succession, or a subjugation of Poland, and it must happen exactly when it did in history or the game sucks. Well, unless *I* am playing Poland, then if the game isn't accurate because I prevent Poland's partitioning then it's a great game. I'm not a modder, and I don't play EU religiously like many here (and more power to you, gamer gods that you are). But I find it interesting that Paradox trying to give the game an internal logic as opposed to an exoskeleton of historic events is considered dumbing down. And if EUIII gives a pretty decent amount of choice to stick with historical events (which may be what this argument is about: that might not exist) then why not just play to your preferred level of actual history?
Sightsee_MC said:
Because it won't give that kind of choice. EUIII sounds like it'll be like Crusader Kings, where everything goes spiralling completely out of control the second you unpause.
I think the problem is y'all think we want a totally historical game. That' not true. We just don't want a "butterfly effect" game.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe what the 'historical' players want is a 'history is a river' game.
What I mean by that is, we picture history as a big river, like the Mississippi or so. Throw a pebble into the river, and you get little ripples, but most of the river isn't effected. Likewise, why should (for example) player-Cherokee conquering the Choctaw cause Europe to go completely random?
This is opposed to the "butterfly effect" crowd, you claim as soon as you start, everything should spiral into insanity and you're a straightjacketing person who should just go read a history book if you disagree.
Rocketman said:What I mean by that is, we picture history as a big river, like the Mississippi or so. Throw a pebble into the river, and you get little ripples, but most of the river isn't effected. Likewise, why should (for example) player-Cherokee conquering the Choctaw cause Europe to go completely random?
This is opposed to the "butterfly effect" crowd, you claim as soon as you start, everything should spiral into insanity and you're a straightjacketing person who should just go read a history book if you disagree.
What they are trying to do with the random events and such is to express the idea that things might have turned out differently WITHOUT the players input sometimes.
Sure, playing as the aztecs might not make to much of a difference in europe, but why should the player be the only variable within the game.
Basically with this argument, you say that the only changes from history should be what the player conciously wants to change.
Why should my playing as China mean that the 100 years war has to turn out the same way as it did historically?
EU3 should do a good job of representing the fact that history can change and turn out differently even when I, the player, didn't affect anything directly or indirectly.
What I am looking forward to the most is the reduction of hindsight in the game - that one might have to reckon with Aragon not knowing that they will be inherited and thus may be ignored without peril.
EUnderhill said:
Very true. Now you can't plan ahead for wars that happened historically.
I mean, people bring up the idea of playing the 30 years war. But what's historicall about building up forces in preperation for a war that is still decades away?
If you knew the exact date that things happened historically, that kind of ruins the realism, yes?
Rocketman said:
Spot on.
daemonofdecay said:
And that would, largely, be a better idea than "straight-jacket" events. However, that requires that the game is versatile enough to actually simulate the reasons behind each event, since there usually were good reasons for things to happen the way they did in history. CK is an example of a game that removed the straight-jacket but completely lacked the simulation aspect, and thus continously created absurd fantasy results much like Civ or TW. It was a fun game indeed, but lacked all the historical appeal that EU2 has.
Absolutely. But there's a difference to what is a plausible change, and what is completely random. I don't think I've ever had an EU2 game, even in AGCEEP, turn out exactly like history. However, the historical events give the major nations a gentle push in the historically correct direction.
Varyar said:
Wich isn't only "their" direction. Without specific events for it, France would probably not have a religious civil war, Holland wouldn't pop up from whatever big-power owns the area... probably england wouldn't lose the USA.
Events that trigger during certain conditions, that is the key!Varyar said:
Except, I'm not a big fan of the fantasy Byzantium events. Real history, we know what happened. An event sequence recanting history feels correct. Fantasy sequences, however, means choosing histories out of an enormously vast number of alternative histories, and will thus easily feel arbitrary.
I do not want either randomness or static immovable events. Historical occurences have a context, they do not occur in a vacuum.
What I want is consequence. Acts, whether they happened in history or not, should have proper consequences. History should emerge from the conditions, not go along a predefined path.
There's a good amount of this in EU2, but there could be much more.
Sightsee_MC said:
You're spot on here. EU2 event system is an exoskeleton, not caring much of what happens internally, nor why it happens.
EU3 recognizes this problem and tries to create an internal logic that attempts to simulate the very reasons why things happened.
The main factor that decides if the EU3 model will work or not is how well this internal logic will succeed in creating circumstances that are plausible and thus historical.
I know at least it will be massively better for multiplayer than the current system. No more people wanting to create and keep alive Brandenburg just for having the great Prussian leaders in game 200 years later. No more timing of wars to certain decades when leader X is / is not alive. No more Spain ceding bankruptcy-triggering provinces to Portugal or similar nonsense. No more people studying the event files to optimize their DP slider moves since 'event X on date Y gives +3 Land.
I'm happy with what EU3 looks like. But afraid it will be too complicated for implementing in a fun, realistic way.
Araanor said:
But then it depends on how well the game can create/handle these conditions as a base for events. EU2 and more so CK shows that this isn't something you can expect. I always saw the historical events, with their triggers, as a very blunt but straightforward way to handle all these conditions.
Now, I do have great faith in Paradox so there's no reason to speculate how EU3 actually will turn out, perhaps it will put my fears to shame.
smn said:
Key word here is "tries". I bet CK tried too and look how that turned out. Point being that unless EU turns into a super-complex simulator, it will need a helping hand from semi-strict measures such as historical events, in order to at all resemble actual history or even reasonable alternative history.
Varyar said:
I don't like this "look on CK!" arguments. The thing is, Paradox never really have time nor resources to make a really good game from CK. They had to work on scratch with deadlins already set when co-producers (the Snowball) failed.
And BTW, I don't think so that EUIII "situational events" are so much similar to the CK "random events".
Certainly, but I don't see that making it more, eh, emergent would make it harder to make a good game than if you made it strictly historical. (Yeah, funny sentence, you try phrasing it better!)Varyar said:
I'm pointing out a direction to take the game (and I get the feeling Johan is somewhat on the same page). I don't want to rid the game of historical events. I want more contextuality, less rigor, more opportunities, more sense - speaking of both events and game mechanics here
The step from EU1 to EU2 in this regard is large. I'm expecting good things.
CK was an experiment run loose.