MTW vs EU3

[George LeS]

...
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.
...

I was under the impression that we would be getting some historical leaders, & if so, that, I presume, would tend to mean the best ones.

I also thought I read that they would be somewhat tied to territory. If so, that'd give rise to a whole 'nother set of exploits.

Of course, I may've just misread some DDs.

 

[Varyar]

Bah, wrote a lengthy post yesterday but lost it... ah well, the discussion is getting a bit old anyway. Bottom line would be that it's not so much a matter of the games themselves as the type of game we wish to have. I and the minority like EU2 because of its attention to historical detail, which provides a great sense of realism. The majority prefer more game and less history, which may yield frequent freak results as in CK, but is more fun to play as it isn't quite as linear.

 

[unmerged(32757)]

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?

That's the paradox -- no pun intended -- of "historical" games. The essence of real history is that you do not know what will happen. I have played HOI many times and, no matter what country I play, I start in 1936 preparing for war, and know that first there will be Anscluss, then Czech, then Poland, etc. It's all great fun, and historical in one sense -- the sense of perfect hindsight -- but not in the sense that history itself is historical, consisting as it does of decisions made in conditions of uncertainty. To the extent you have one in a game you sacrifice some of the other.