My thoughts on where EU2 went wrong & how elements from other games could help EU3

[unmerged(37948)]

Don't mix CK and EU2 events engine! otherwise I'd have to buy new computer :wacko:

Maybe a choice between CK or EU style? I personally prefer the CK style. Makes each game interesting.

Btw. I think Pdox should mainly use Pdox design ideas. I want this to feel like a Paradox game and not a patchwork of various game ideas.

As I said before. Most Paradox games had good ideas so it should be enough by combining the best ones with a brand new engine. Better AI of course . Maybe Brad Wardell can help out hehe.

bm

 

[Duuk]

Don't mix CK and EU2 events engine! otherwise I'd have to buy new computer :wacko:

No you won't. Unless EU3 has all the characters that CK does (which, thank god, I have seen nothing to think it will), then the events won't need to be checked all that often.

EU3 = 1700 provinces.

CK = 10000+ characters. Each of those characters has event checks every day, from death, to illness, to educations and births.

Think of CK as a wonderful "battlefield test". If your computer could handle THAT mess... EU3 will be a breeze!

 

[unmerged(37948)]

No you won't. Unless EU3 has all the characters that CK does (which, thank god, I have seen nothing to think it will), then the events won't need to be checked all that often.!

Pity if it doesn't. It's what made CK unique and more realistic than EU (if you dont count the weird developments).

There should be individuals/heirs/families because the RPG element will widen the appeal of the game. MTW II will have it. I don't think playing this period would feel realistic without it.

bm

 

[Duuk]

Pity if it doesn't. It's what made CK unique and more realistic than EU (if you dont count the weird developments).

There should be individuals/heirs/families because the RPG element will widen the appeal of the game. MTW II will have it. I don't think playing this period would feel realistic without it.

bm

I want nothing to do with that for EU3. I love CK, it's one of my favorite games of all time, but that is not EU. EU is about nations forming and developing from the immediate Post-Dark-Ages to the early Imperial Era. Hopefully, it isn't cluttered up with things that would fit better in a different game.

For example...

the CK series should be all about characters. It focuses on "people", since in that era (late dark age), PEOPLE were the prime movers in history. Individual Kings and Dukes are what you recall about that period in history. For example, you don't think "England was a Crusading country", you think "Richard the Lionheart was a fervent Crusader", and there was no "nationalist movement" that stabbed him in the back, it was John the Pretender.

the EU series is about formation of countries and colonization. The expansion of nationalistic belief and the first early discovery that "We should all hang together... or we will surely hang seperately." Taking a country from late Kingdom to expanding global trade/colonial empire is the core of the series.

the VIC series is about social revolution and Late Imperialism (defined as economic imperialism). It focuses on the wants and needs of individuals rather than Kings or Dukes, which is why you need to worry about social reforms. I cannot WAIT to see a VIC2 with the situational events engine applied to it.

the HOI series is more of a logistical/military game. Grand Strategic Wargame, similiar to a "World in Flames" style, without 75000 counters to set up. The focus of the HOI series is on the units. Moving them around, giving them orders, and planning your operational moves: How hard should you kick in the door of Russia to make the whole rotten thing collapse, etc.

Each of these series would fail miserably if it tried too much to be like the others, not all of these things "work" as well with the other types, but each is specifically geared towards "What was most important at that time".

Oddly, even though I like WWII history, I don't care for the HOI series because I'm not a hardcore wargamer. I like to build and "sim". So for me, EU, VIC, and CK each have their own charms.

But let's not get the games' goals confused, please. Let's take the best parts of each game ENGINE to use in EU3, but not necessarily the best parts of the GAME.

 

[Mowers]

I think its very arguable to say that EU is almost half like CK and half Vicky.

In CK its character driven exactly as you describe yet in Vicky its POP driven as we all know.

EU really ought to be a mixture of both and one that gradually morphs from one to the other, neither starting as fully character driven nor ending as fully POP driven.

I believe EU would be better off attempting to model that and the "game challenges and management" issues that come with that in combination with foriegn relationship issues as opposed to having a game about investing in techs and building factories - both of which statesmen simply didnt do and if they did it was a very small part of their large role; to include this is unrealistic and ahistoric. Those things happened to countries, sometimes through government, sometimes simply due to good fortune. Its managing that change and the associated problems caused by changing economies and technologies that governments spent their time dealing with.

 

[unmerged(27108)]

Hmm. We actually have no chance whatsoever to prove this hypothesis right or wrong until we discover the time machine, right? So, i don't know and i'm not sure if Napoleon would have been born if the circumstances were different or if there would have been another character with similar traits coming from Isle of Man instead or something else. History might have been different, might have not. Might be the names would be different, actions the same. Who is to know? Not me. Not you. All is pure speculation.

This is quite easy to prove.

Humans interaction have millions and millions of variable. Maybe it's impossible to count all of them. Those millions of variables have millions of links between them. This leads to a chaotic system, you agree?

Now what a chaotic system produce?

Take a simple iterative equation that is used in biology to calculate the final population of a closed system in a certain environment :

x(n+1) = R * x(n) * (1-x(n))

R is a parameter representing the quality of the environment. Take R = 2.7 and start with an arbitrary starting value of X. Let's take 0.4 (you could take anything). Do 10 000 iterations of this equation and plot the final 200 result. You get 0.6269 as the final 200 results.

Now, take R = 3.7 and take the same starting value of X, 0.4. Do again 10 000 iterations and plot the final 200 results. What do you get? 200 different result. You might say : "you need more iteration to have a convergence with this value of R?" False, you could iterate 1 billion times, you'll still get a non-ceonvergent result.

So, a simple non-linear equation leads to chaos after a threshold. I think life have more non-linear equation than only one.

See this website for some graphics :

Graphs

The text is in french, but I've resumed the essential. I've produced those graphics from the book : Theory of Chaos by James Gleick.

------------------

sorry to have been off-topic. Now, on-topic, I completely agree to have dynamic mission. Makes life interesting.

 

[Smirfy]

I think its very arguable to say that EU is almost half like CK and half Vicky.

In CK its character driven exactly as you describe yet in Vicky its POP driven as we all know.

EU really ought to be a mixture of both and one that gradually morphs from one to the other, neither starting as fully character driven nor ending as fully POP driven.

I believe EU would be better off attempting to model that and the "game challenges and management" issues that come with that in combination with foriegn relationship issues as opposed to having a game about investing in techs and building factories - both of which statesmen simply didnt do and if they did it was a very small part of their large role; to include this is unrealistic and ahistoric. Those things happened to countries, sometimes through government, sometimes simply due to good fortune. Its managing that change and the associated problems caused by changing economies and technologies that governments spent their time dealing with.

I can understand what your saying but can't visualize a game built around a laissez-faire engine. I still think and I could be wrong but with the contemporary programing level we are still at the stage of a player, never mind an AI making physical decisions in the domestic enviroment.

I'm more interested in playing a game that works than having another £30 concept on my shelf

 

[Mowers]

I can understand what your saying but can't visualize a game built around a laissez-faire engine. I still think and I could be wrong but with the contemporary programing level we are still at the stage of a player, never mind an AI making physical decisions in the domestic enviroment.

I'm more interested in playing a game that works than having another £30 concept on my shelf

I'd agree. If it comes down to it I'd rather have a game that works rather than a game that doesnt. However, if you are going to make another version then you really have to start off on the premise of making a new game based on an old idea as opposed to making an old game with bits tagged on, because I believe thats reached the top of that particular evolutionary branch.

We are at a strange point for paradox. EU2 and HoI2 were both enhancements of the orginal games and I'm not sure that either can effectively evolve in their current state because of the large amounts of work contributed by the community and paradox themselves in after release support. So the question is what do you make the third game of any series? Should you really try for something new or not? I would say yes because I am not convinced (although I am open to convincing) that there really is any major polishing work left to be done on the second game in the series.

 

[arcorelli]

This is quite easy to prove.

Humans interaction have millions and millions of variable. Maybe it's impossible to count all of them. Those millions of variables have millions of links between them. This leads to a chaotic system, you agree?

To continue with the off-topic discussion at hand:

For all I know, it could be a stochastic system with a few stable long-term solutions. If society is chaotic you are right, now that is the entire point of it?

(And I know a lot of more society simulations based on stochastic ideas than on chaos. And I know a lot of society simulations than got stable configurations).

 

[Smirfy]

I'd agree. If it comes down to it I'd rather have a game that works rather than a game that doesnt. However, if you are going to make another version then you really have to start off on the premise of making a new game based on an old idea as opposed to making an old game with bits tagged on, because I believe thats reached the top of that particular evolutionary branch.

We are at a strange point for paradox. EU2 and HoI2 were both enhancements of the orginal games and I'm not sure that either can effectively evolve in their current state because of the large amounts of work contributed by the community and paradox themselves in after release support. So the question is what do you make the third game of any series? Should you really try for something new or not? I would say yes because I am not convinced (although I am open to convincing) that there really is any major polishing work left to be done on the second game in the series.

No one wants EUII with bits added on. The basis for the game is Europe 1453-1790 which is a sound concept for a game. Starting from scratch all the models whether exploration,military, economic, diplomatic social and trade can now interact instead of working independantly as occured in EU2. The enviroment can become immersive. but it has too work!

 

[unmerged(27108)]

To continue with the off-topic discussion at hand:

For all I know, it could be a stochastic system with a few stable long-term solutions. If society is chaotic you are right, now that is the entire point of it?

(And I know a lot of more society simulations based on stochastic ideas than on chaos. And I know a lot of society simulations than got stable configurations).

Well, when doing simulations you need to simplify the equations. In physics we linearize non-linear equation, thus achieveing an approximation of the reality. it's useful for short-term predictions.

Yes, it could be a stochastic system but I highly doubt it. Physics, with far less variable, is not. So I doubt that a non-linear system with more variable would be stochastic.

Also, chaotic systems have stable points called attractor. Those attractors are like graviational field in the system itself. Most of the solutions in time will be around those attractor. Earth have also those attractor. So, we could be in one of them now and with some added value of something (like CO2 to the atmosphere. but it could be anything that have an influence on the Earth or society) the system could rapidly go into another attractor (another state of the system).

What is keeping the society together is good example of attractor. Anarchy doesn't last long. you go from one organized system to another.

See the wikipedia entry for more detail (it's not a bad article).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

i found this link to, quite good : Chaos Introduction

 

[unmerged(37948)]

Make no mistake. Up until the French Revolution, Europe was run by families. The concept of nationalism came later.

No. I'm not saying "Make EU3 into CK2". I'm just agreeing on the original press release, namelly that ideas will come from all Paradox games. Like picking the raisings from the cake.

But I'm also saying. CK is the one most resembling how it worked in real life (up until French Revolution).

bm

 

[fasquardon]

Amen, Duuk. Those posts express how I feel exactly, yet never put the effort into articulating. For a lot of people, I cant say I know why the even play games at all when they could just read what DID happen because they just want to recreate history. One thing I never understood about VIP mod is that one of Vics great strengths is not being as historical event driven as EU II, yet people clamour for forced history for the sake of "flavor".

I'll third this. CK's courage in breaking away from determinism was it's great strength. Let's see Paradox build on that.

fasquardon

 

[Amadís de Gaula]

I'll third this. CK's courage in breaking away from determinism was it's great strength. Let's see Paradox build on that.

fasquardon

And I hope it won´t be that way.

CK is CK, you know you´re not making history. EU must be EU, not some sort of post medieval dinasty-system, that will lead to Narnia Universalis.

In fact I´d prefer there would be no dinastic system at all.

 

[Jomini]

Make no mistake. Up until the French Revolution, Europe was run by families. The concept of nationalism came later.

No. I'm not saying "Make EU3 into CK2". I'm just agreeing on the original press release, namelly that ideas will come from all Paradox games. Like picking the raisings from the cake.

But I'm also saying. CK is the one most resembling how it worked in real life (up until French Revolution).

bm

Did you flunk history? Up until the French revolution England had massive internal divisions with Parliament, the Nobility, and the Monarchy variably setting policy. On the cotinent you ranged from interventionist kings like Louis XIV to figurehead kings like Mehmid IV (who signed away real control to Koprulu). Going abroad makes it even worse when you consider Japan and India. The truth is that politics at this time fell along a spectrum in some times places the family was the most important; in others the idea of the country was FAR more important (I.e. the latter Ottomans were repeatedly deposed if they did wrong by the country). Argueably more policy was set by the avisors, visors, and court than by the monarchs.

As far as the concept of nationalism, don't be absurd. It was for their rights as Englishmen that Cromwell could lead into regicide. Likewise the Scots had an extremely advanced concept of the nation (Scottish kings were kings of the people, not the land). When you look at historical propoganda, nationalism is invoked.

Frankly this transition is part of what makes EU so interesting, you are going from the last days of feudatory kings to modern nationalist monarchies.

 

[Duuk]

And I hope it won´t be that way.

CK is CK, you know you´re not making history. EU must be EU, not some sort of post medieval dinasty-system, that will lead to Narnia Universalis.

In fact I´d prefer there would be no dinastic system at all.

You didn't really read the post, did you?

We're talking about the event system, not the character system.

 

[Amadís de Gaula]

You didn't really read the post, did you?

We're talking about the event system, not the character system.

I read all, but you´re right, I just mixed issues, due to the CK example. Thought it was easy to deduce, considering the quote. But you did not deduce it, did you?

 

[Brasidas]

The comparison made with MOO3 is instructive. MOO3 is a classic example of 'ambition + lack of resolve'. The company who made it are like the general who comes up with a daring battle plan, but which fails because he's too afraid to commit his reserves at the critical moment. MOO3 is not a bad game, it's a very good game... in the alpha stage of development. The company making it got scared by how long it took to make, rushed it to release, and then when everyone told them 'you've given us a half-finished game, now patch it into shape,' they stuck their fingers in their ears.

This is, in my opinion, bullshit. Emerich came to his bosses with a proposal, they told him he should be more ambitious, he came back with an ambitious plan. One that was beyond his or the dev team's capabilities. He was given support for years, pushing back published release dates (which had been not just on websites but print media and advertising packaged with other games) more than once before the cuts began.

By the time the cuts began, the company was fed up. Emerich was gone. The overarching game concept was to have a UI that encouraged you to stay high-level and forget about micromanagement, but the AI was so aweful (Uh-oh, the Harvesters just attacked. Umm... why is my fleet entirely obsolete troop transports?) that you were forced to micro - with a UI that deliberately made it painful. If the fundamental game concept, which went against the grain of any micro-managing megalomaniac who was a fan of the earlier games anyway, still wasn't plausible after two years of development, calling for cuts and changes from on high doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

The usual cause of this kind of problem is a lack of communication between creatives and suits in the company: the creatives are ashamed with what they've released and want to finish the job, but the suits don't care because they only look at short-term earnings from a game, and have shifted the creatives onto other more 'marketable' projects.

There's nothing wrong with this at all. I'm hardly a fan of Atari, or its predecessor. But even good ol' Microprose wouldn't have let a project go off the deep end as badly as happened here. And they went under by letting projects go off the deep end, as I recall.

Paradox is still small compared to the giants of the computer game industry, and I don't know if they have the resources to pull off something like a successful version of MOO3, which had that essential idea that 'you guide your empire, you don't control it'. I don't doubt that they have talent though, and they still seem to be more 'pro-fan' than 'pro-suit'. But the questions remain: do they have ambition, and do they have resolve?

Do you have any idea what sort of resources SimTex had when they did MoO1? The MoO3 concept that was eventually butchered and packaged for your non-enjoyment was stillborn. If Emerich and his team couldn't get it going with the resources they had available in two years, with their love of the game and their goodwill, I doubt anyone could have. A good game, however, anyone with "ambition and resolve" can develop.

Look at Brad Wardell and Galciv. Hell, he couldn't even program and he still wrote GalCiv (the original) on his lonesome.

The suit-bashing argument's a non-starter. By building on what you know and using an achievable game design, you build a good game. You don't, or at least rarely, build a good game by throwing money at a black hole and having the "resolve" to postpone its release and extending the devs' salaries by an extra couple years beyond what the devs themselves projected.

 

[Gebhard Blucher]

Except that too revolutionary stuff quite often stinks: A lot of what people want is reminding me of what people wanted for in MOO3.

Remember how *that* turned out?

Ugh. Don't remind us. I really looked forward to that game, but it turned out to be a complete dud.

I'd be more than happy with some minor improvements, and some better modeling. Ideally (IMO), EU3 will give players some more flexibility to go a-historic, while at the same time give the AI less flexibility to go nuts.

I had a lot of fun going the historic (and often a-historic) route with the major nations like England, France, etc., but I most fondly remember my many games as the oddball countries like Ethiopia, Japan, and the Byzantines.

However, one of the most frustrating things about EU2 was when the AI controlled countries would inevitably spiral out of control. China and Austria are the two most obvious offenders here (the almost guaranteed Big White/Brown Blobs).

Whatever happens, I'm sure to buy EU3 when it comes out. From what I understand, this will be all Paradox, so I can't imagine them making a totally crappy game.