And of course the HoI series also has command limits based on rank (1/3/9 divisions IIRC).
NA - Initial feedback
- Thread starter St Alban
- 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.
Oh, I don't know why I thought that there would be historical events added in NA? Must have read it wrong. 
Not worth it for me then.
Not worth it for me then.
I'm pleased with the expansion over all. But there are two pretty big problems for me with it.
First, the Ottomans still are mentally retarded in their priorities, expanding into frigid Siberia over Egypt. That is uber frustrating. In the same vein, Spain focuses on colonizing Quebec and occupying Morocco instead of expanding into central/south america. I wish there was some "targeting" ai to get these Empires slightly more historically accurate, and logical, aims
Second, and since I paid about 50 USD for both products combined its no big deal, I get the feeling that EU3 is only complete with Na. Its like without NA, I stopped playing the game for a myriad of in game and technical reasons. with it everything is much better. So it seems like I either paid 25 bucks to beta test EU 3, by buying the original game, or I paid 20 bucks to buy a good patch. I mean i realize paradox is a small buisness and so they have to push titles out and then the expansions are basically done for both economic but also fan reasons. And I also apreciate their support, these boards and the numberless patches. BUT nonetheless, the EU3-NA is somewhat reminiscent of Victoria-Revolutions in that the game just feels kinda...not done and only an expansion really making things work as I think they should have in the first place.
Having said all of that I think its worth the money, and if you are running on an older machine the performance is worth at least 10 bucks alone.
First, the Ottomans still are mentally retarded in their priorities, expanding into frigid Siberia over Egypt. That is uber frustrating. In the same vein, Spain focuses on colonizing Quebec and occupying Morocco instead of expanding into central/south america. I wish there was some "targeting" ai to get these Empires slightly more historically accurate, and logical, aims
Second, and since I paid about 50 USD for both products combined its no big deal, I get the feeling that EU3 is only complete with Na. Its like without NA, I stopped playing the game for a myriad of in game and technical reasons. with it everything is much better. So it seems like I either paid 25 bucks to beta test EU 3, by buying the original game, or I paid 20 bucks to buy a good patch. I mean i realize paradox is a small buisness and so they have to push titles out and then the expansions are basically done for both economic but also fan reasons. And I also apreciate their support, these boards and the numberless patches. BUT nonetheless, the EU3-NA is somewhat reminiscent of Victoria-Revolutions in that the game just feels kinda...not done and only an expansion really making things work as I think they should have in the first place.
Having said all of that I think its worth the money, and if you are running on an older machine the performance is worth at least 10 bucks alone.
Hello everyone,
One thing I noticed that surprised me straight away when I began playing a new game in Napoleon's Ambition post-1800 was that Great Britain's military units display a green uniform with red shoulders.
I understand that it is not practical to create unique sprites for the armies of each individual country but I thought that the original EUIII had the right idea by colouring every English and British unit as red.
Would there be any possibility of bringing back the red-coats? The game, for the Napoleonic time period, does not seem to be realistic to me with this change / omission.
Whilst I understand that not every detail can be paid attention to, does anyone else find the stark contrast in army uniform colours to be a bit strange?
Very best wishes,
Andrew
One thing I noticed that surprised me straight away when I began playing a new game in Napoleon's Ambition post-1800 was that Great Britain's military units display a green uniform with red shoulders.
I understand that it is not practical to create unique sprites for the armies of each individual country but I thought that the original EUIII had the right idea by colouring every English and British unit as red.
Would there be any possibility of bringing back the red-coats? The game, for the Napoleonic time period, does not seem to be realistic to me with this change / omission.
Whilst I understand that not every detail can be paid attention to, does anyone else find the stark contrast in army uniform colours to be a bit strange?
Very best wishes,
Andrew
I have some problems with my current game as Poland. I've vassalized Lithuania a few years back.
1. A war of succession broke out, I was forced to choose between my Vassal Lithuania or Brandenburg. I chose Lithuania, now Litania and I have occupied every territory of Mecklemburg, Brandenburg and Bavaria and Lithuania won't make peace and since I'm the junior partner I can't make peace. This system is obviously a dud since we've been at war for over a decade without stop.
2. Your vassal should never be any sort of a partner in a PU.
3. Mecklemburg still has a fleet. No home port but a fleet that just hangs out and doesn't do crap. Meaning that they are undead ships since they have no place to replenish and no money to pay their sailors.
4. PUs obviously don't work since I've yet to see any nation be annexed in a PU.
5. In 10 years after the game started France and England and Spain and Portugal had over 5 full sized colonial cities, obviously the AI bonuses are crap and need to be stopped, since by 1519 most of the US East Coast is taken and so is most of the Carribean.
6. The regency council has now ruled my nation for 25 years. WTF?
The game is obviously majorly bugged and incomplete and needs a lot of reworking. I'm disappointed.
1. A war of succession broke out, I was forced to choose between my Vassal Lithuania or Brandenburg. I chose Lithuania, now Litania and I have occupied every territory of Mecklemburg, Brandenburg and Bavaria and Lithuania won't make peace and since I'm the junior partner I can't make peace. This system is obviously a dud since we've been at war for over a decade without stop.
2. Your vassal should never be any sort of a partner in a PU.
3. Mecklemburg still has a fleet. No home port but a fleet that just hangs out and doesn't do crap. Meaning that they are undead ships since they have no place to replenish and no money to pay their sailors.
4. PUs obviously don't work since I've yet to see any nation be annexed in a PU.
5. In 10 years after the game started France and England and Spain and Portugal had over 5 full sized colonial cities, obviously the AI bonuses are crap and need to be stopped, since by 1519 most of the US East Coast is taken and so is most of the Carribean.
6. The regency council has now ruled my nation for 25 years. WTF?
The game is obviously majorly bugged and incomplete and needs a lot of reworking. I'm disappointed.
Last edited:
Featauril said:
If you own provinces near it you could make your own CoT to steal its trade
a.j.kniveton said:
Yeah, I dont understand how we forgot to copy the english texture to the british texture for tech4.
I wish EU3 used the peace negotiation system from it! It was fantastic.ubik said:
Failing that, it would be nice to have the game treat wars against other religion groups as annex = yes on both sides, but wars against your own religion group as annex = no on both sides. That would allow for the Ottomans swallowing Christian nations whole, make Vijayanagar and the Deccan really at each other's throats, but keep wars in Europe more civilized...
That could make things interesting. I'd probably want to separate the siezing provinces ability from the annexation ability though (which I'd like to have even without your change but it would be even more important with it).dharper said:
I've started two games last night, and in both Aragon inherited Sicily after a PU...SonofWinter said:
SonofWinter said:
play a hundred games or so, and then make these sort of claims. i just played 200 years of two games and besides for the early colonization, and the fleet thing(but what does that matter) i haven't encountered these things. This is why they are RANDOM.
I've played another 5 years of the same game and with complete occupation of all enemies, AI Lithuania won't make a peace and I CAN'T make peace, the option is greyed out and I'm in year 30 of the regency and of this bloody WAR. Lithuania has already lost 1 or two kings in this time period and still no end to this war, because the AI wasn't programmed for this.apeman32 said:
SonofWinter said:
1+2. i agree a vassal should not be a senior in a PU;
3. i thought ghost ships were fixed
4. they work alright as far as i have seen
5. exploration is still too fast and easy, also i still get reinforcments on "indian country", btw i think there should be steady attrition, i uncovered half of south america with 1000 men without trouble (diff:normal),thats too easy.
6.possible if the crown prince is retarded etc, have to wait for the next monarch
i see a major improvement of a good game with NA.
i think maybe it lacks country-specific flavor in single player, but MM really
fills that "gap", while staying true to the open-game idea.
1+2: A vassal can only be a senior member in a PU if you've got a royal marriage with them when you make them your vassal. Which is required for a diplomatic vassalization, but will only happen once (as you can't RM your vassals).
3: These probably arn't dead ships but rather ships that are alive but don't suffer from attrition. AI doesn't have naval attrition, so their ships can float forever.
4: PU's work just fine... play some more.
5: Matter of opinion. I think the colonization is fine, I just wish more nations would consider picking QFTNW, instead of just the big four.
6: Presumably just really bad luck. (Edit: I stand corrected. Thanks for the info lenny)
3: These probably arn't dead ships but rather ships that are alive but don't suffer from attrition. AI doesn't have naval attrition, so their ships can float forever.
4: PU's work just fine... play some more.
5: Matter of opinion. I think the colonization is fine, I just wish more nations would consider picking QFTNW, instead of just the big four.
6: Presumably just really bad luck. (Edit: I stand corrected. Thanks for the info lenny)
Last edited:
Without owning NA yet I just answer based on EU3 1.3 knowledge:
1+2: Explained (by Kanil) how it happens but imo an annoying bug. RM should be broken when a country is vassalized.
6: When an inheritance results in a succession war, a regency council in effect until one party presses the PU as a peace condition. Since your war is still ongoing, the regency council is still in effect. (Also, I have never seen an AI actually demand the PU as peace conditions, so usually you have a regency council for the duration of the PU.)
1+2: Explained (by Kanil) how it happens but imo an annoying bug. RM should be broken when a country is vassalized.
6: When an inheritance results in a succession war, a regency council in effect until one party presses the PU as a peace condition. Since your war is still ongoing, the regency council is still in effect. (Also, I have never seen an AI actually demand the PU as peace conditions, so usually you have a regency council for the duration of the PU.)
Balor said:
Maybe that is quite an easy way of explaining sales figures. It can also be though of in this way:
EU1 sold a lot because it was something new and many were interested, some didn't like it. Which might explains why EU2 sold less. EU3 sold more _because_ of the game EU2 was, its reviews and historical feel that made it different from the normal game. Not to forget that, sadly I think, a lot of people read "3D = new cool game, 2D = old boring game". And if EU2 was so bad, why name the new, and honestly changed game, as a sequel? If you see it this way, historical events and 3D is what made EU3 sell so well. =)
Well well, I really miss the Paradox that was, and the historical games they made (I know they still call them historical, but we seem to have a very different definition of historical. Hell, Risk could almost be defined as historical with this new broad definition
) and come back every now and then with my hopes high that I will find what I miss, but I also understand that Paradox most certainly have made a very wise choice, economically speaking at least, and chosen the popular way.Will be fun to see how an EU4 would go =)
>I wish EU3 used the peace negotiation system from it (Empires In Arms)! It was fantastic.
Yeah, but can you even imagine how much b*tching and moaning there would be about "I can only take three provinces even though I my l33t forces totally pwned the enemy!".
Yeah, but can you even imagine how much b*tching and moaning there would be about "I can only take three provinces even though I my l33t forces totally pwned the enemy!".
Johan said:
Doesn't quite seem to be working:
Maybe Denmark I can see (outlets to the North Sea) but the Papal States don't seem to meet your requirements, nor Aragon. Not to mention Scotland, who your fixes don't account for at all, getting into the game as well...
Keep in mind the above screens are will all leader/advisor/monarch options set to historical...