Txini said:
Which obviously don't seem to prevent him from getting the details wrong.
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.
Which obviously don't seem to prevent him from getting the details wrong.
I cannot say that I have been following the development of the exp but what I don't understand is the lack of historical events that was one of the few things that made EU2 superior to the rest of the strategy games at the time. Was the task of implementing them too demanding for the development team or was it decided that the fans didn't want them?
MVH / moi
MVH / moi
And suddenly the glorius EUII system is so much less glorius...
People just can't make up their minds.
People just can't make up their minds.
No, just that EU2 RM are not same as EU3 RMArilou said:
In EU2 it basically had a relation effect and in EU3 a random succession effect
EvilSanta said:
Who cannot make up their minds? The EU2 system *is not even implemented*.
Rompa said:
Eu1 without them sold more..
Eu3 without them sold more.
Small hardcore fanbase at forums wants them..
Txini said:
But then not restoring it does mean it isn't "The EU2 system" but somethign completely new, neh?
Balor said:
EU2 would have been more successful without historical events? I find it hard to believe that people go online before they decided to buy or not to buy Eu2 and see that "oh my goodness, HISTORICAL EVENTS?!?!, no thank you!" but maybe I like them too much to be impartial. I just cannot understand that people like to play historical games where the only historical thing in them are the flag colours
llfahr said:
Ummm.... You can if you choose not to have the historical options.
If you want historical leader and monarchs, then they are hard coded like EU2 which makes sense. Why would have have unhistorical RM creating unhistorical babies in line to the throne?
And secondly, if you have Admiral Nelson and General Wellington then why do you expect some guy to jump out of the woodwork that never existed to be a good general too?
Arilou said:
Yes, it is. Johan never said about implementing old system of royal marriages to this new ruler/leader system.
He only said they brought back EUII LEADER AND RULER system. And that they did.
You can't possibly be complaining about the lack of RM marriages in historical EU3 compared to EU2.
Inheritance-less RM are basically just one-time rep boosters. You're not missing that much of the game by not using them.
Inheritance-less RM are basically just one-time rep boosters. You're not missing that much of the game by not using them.
Rompa said:
It's hardly 'historical' when you go in at 1453 in the knowledge that X is going to inherit Y on such-and-such a date no matter what...
Earl Uhtred said:
Bingo.
My main problem with Vicky for example are historical events that happen no matter what. It is kind of boring to see the date as Prussia and think "I should start expanding my military, I will go to war with Austria and France in 5 years"
Balor said:
Please.. let me say that with all respect, that's pure bullshit, EUI sold more than EUII cos it was ground breaking, EuII was and enchanged EUI with some new features.
EUIII sold more for the simple fact of graphics, which is what 80% of today's usual gamer is looking for, some eye candy crap.
Also, if I remember correctly EUII was unplayable at release date with countles bugs which is a much better reason as to why EUII didn't sell better. Which was exactly what happened with Crusader kings aswell.
Like it was said before, it seem paradox decided to just rubbed in. "you wanted history? here take this." and created a half baked feature that is useless just to mislead some people into buying.
Earl Uhtred said:
Then what is it? I found that Eu2 had many diversities and it could take many twists and turns. But, I guess, if you only play the same country over and over again you get bored. My trick is to switch now and then. I just want some events that give flavour to the game. Something that makes you feel that playing russia is playing russia. Now you might as well be playing dahomey and still get the exact same events and twists
EvilSanta said:
Personally I'm not worried by historical events (those can be scripted) somewhat more by the lack of country AI-modding abilities, but that might be hard to do....
But what annoys me slightly is the dev's seeming glee in acting like Literal Genies especially given how relatively easy it would have been to allow you to keep both systems *shrug*
In EU2 I felt I was following a script. I would fight Burgundy as France, "booyah, I got those southern provinces... oh I was supposed to wait until 15xx and inherit them for free, no BB.. crap, better restart"
Featauril said:
That also made playing different countries err.... More different. Playing the Mughals was nothing like Playing France, in EU3 the experience is much more similar.
I think the complaints are that it look strange for the ordinary fanboy if a expansion for a game was done to revert back to a worse state then EU2 was in - when people seem to have expected that NA added what wasn't included from EU2 with the things from EU3 to make it a good combination.
I don't know personally if this is correct or not as I haven't bought the expansion, just that is how I interpret the posters in this thread?
I don't know personally if this is correct or not as I haven't bought the expansion, just that is how I interpret the posters in this thread?
Rompa said:
I agree the vanilla game can feel sort of barren, but more and better contextual events will fix that. That's why I play MM. Still wish they'd have more Orthodox church events, mind you.