No historical events???!!!

[Simon B]

I first discovered that wonderful company named Paradox in 2003 and an exeptionnal game named Europa-Universalis II, a game that was all about indeep diplomacy, trade and wafare and what made it an extraordinary game that beat them all HISTORICAL ACCURACY!!!! Yes indeed the diplomacy, trade system made it very good but what made that game very special and different from the others was that feeling that you actually played threw history and YOUR abillity to change it. I was hooked!!! I bought all other paradox game based on the EUII engine and every time was delighted it really was those kind of reel, historical game that I was looking for. Those sequel to EUII were in fact very great(Except CK) but never really satisfied me like an epic game of EUII and then in february 2006 O JOY, O GLORY they annouced EUIII. I was filled with anticipation, great hopes in regard of probably the best historical strategy game ever made!! And then...EUIII No historical leader,nor historical monarchs and worst no historical event and it went from bad to worst when I tried to play my first game and saw all that generic and random feel flying everywhere like in all the other strategy game on market!! I was only able to play like half a campain when MM cames out,Thanks to ubik, sharp and many other who did an outstanding job trying to fix many flaws, randomness that EUIII have.Then came hopes again with the annoucement of NA expantion who bring back historical leader, monarch and other stuff of the good'old EUII days but still no historical events and still can't recapture the "playing threw history" feel of paradox previous game. Their were a lot of complain when EUIII cames out, A LOTS maybe that is why paradox tried to fixed it with NA but when I heard that no historical events were to be in Rome I went from sad to angry. Wasn't paradox known as a company that listen to his fan base?? I praised them to everyone I know as THE best company, but they seem to have forgotten that the essence of their game was that historical felling you got everytime you played them. All I know is that for the first time I will not buy the next paradox game and that is really a shame. I think that a lot of people will be dissapointed so I suggest you to sign on this thread to show your disapointement and hopes that paradox will finally listen to us poors historicals geeks.
Thanks

 

[ashbery76]

You thinking it so, does not make it so.

 

[saskganesh]

meh. I disagree.

 

[labalag]

Wall of text crits you for 100000.
You die.

Oh wait, wrong game, wrong forum.

Try adding a little punctuation and paragraphs to your posts, Makes it a lot easier on the eye.

About the no historic events option I only have to say this: Paradox Games are centered around the idea of making your own history with a nation of your choosing. Why should you want any historic events to frankly ruin your game experience.

I wish they don't have to include any events in this game at all (maybe the random ones) and that the game engine will be able to simulate any possibility without having to use events at all.

That being said: If you want history go read a book.

 

[afb]

I like the EU3 spproach, with focus on underlying social and geographical mechanisms rather than the EU2 events, that occasionally made no sense at all. I think I'd compare it to an Annales School approach (la longue durée), which is by no means less historical than the traditional von Ranke approach (wie es eigentlich gewesen ist).

And being a bit of a structuralist myself, I much prefer the Annales School

Anders

 

[Mannisks]

Just play only the starting year of each of your games and it will still be quite historically accurate!

 

[shadow737]

Random events based on some historical facts make sense in this game though. The type of events could be locked into certain political, religious, social systems in the game or be the completely random plagues and famines that plagued the Classical world.

 

[Woody Man]

I'll use an old example from EUII, if I convert a game over from CK, why the hell should I have to choose whether England imprisons Mary Queen of Scots when thats got nothing to do with me, why are they asking about some War of Jenkins Ear? I have great relations with Spain

 

[HannibalBarca]

Believe me, I'm angry too. The idea of starting at the First Punic War and, by 10 years in, not being able to even recognize history defeats the purpose of playing this game as a historically immersive experience.

 

[ComradeOm]

Believe me, I'm angry too. The idea of starting at the First Punic War and, by 10 years in, not being able to even recognize history defeats the purpose of playing this game as a historically immersive experience.

Why would you of all people care about historical accuracy?

 

[durecellrabbit]

Why would you of all people care about historical accuracy?

He wouldn't be able to celebrate Scipio's ingame victory otherwise.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Why would you of all people care about historical accuracy?

I want it to represent the vast differences between Carthage and Rome in ability to wage a protracted military campaign. I want to experience what the Carthaginians did in reality prior to the Second Punic War...THEN end it differently. There are plenty of events throughout the Paradox games which simulate alternate ends to wars...Bitter Peace, Confederate Victory at Last, why not for this one too? It's not all that hard really.

 

[hanzo]

I'm not signing on to agree but I thought I'd give my thoughts on historical events. Now I have played very little EU2 but a lot of HOI2, so I think I know what you mean by historical events.
And I also was a bit turned off by the generic feel of EU3, but I've come to like it for what it is. Also there is Magna Mundi for events galore. I like them both.

But now for Rome, think about it, it will contain a character system, something like the one in Crusader Kings, it will span 300 years in ancient times, It will be somewhat "smaller" than EU3 in terms of playable countries, or dynasties for CK.

Imagine you want to play like Carthage, in a game with historical events like Eu2, and manage to beat Rome and are happily plundering all over Gaul.
Then an event pops up "You have been beaten by Rome, your great city Carthage lies in ruins" or you have a nice peace with the romans and are fighting Egypt when an event pops up "A small skirmish on the Island of Sicily have escalated into war with the romans".
I thought EU2 was full of such errors? But I could be wrong. Still this would be pretty annoying i think.

Now instead imagine Rome without events.
This is of course not the actual game as it will be, but my hopes anyway.
just what I think this game might become.

You are playing the carthagians (or a carthagian family) and have just secured a colony in Spain from some lowly barbarians. Your Carthagian high-king grants you the province for some years, and your playing a young but promising commander, first you marry a local noblewoman to appease the locals, then spend the rest of your life build up a strong army and fostering a family. Maybe two sons and a daughter, you marry the girl to the egyptian court, possible allies later on, then train one of your sons to be a warlord(like Hannibal), either , like CK with events on upbringing or some other way, the other son though was a weakling from birth so you make him a trader or some such. Then go from there.

Just imagine the possibilities mate! Yes you could spawn Hannibal, and train elephants, or screw that if you like!
Carthage was built on the navy so you build a navy like no other!
Or you ally the Egyptians and pincer the Romans, or you crush the Egyptians and gain her riches or.. well you get the point, and that is just Carthage, think of playing Rome, with all the backstabbing and the politics, or Egypt under a female pharao like Cleopatra, or a greek city-state like eh, well Sparta...

The key, I think is to avoid the "generic" feel of EU3. This can be implemented by specific army units, buildings and national ideas instead of pre-set possibly faulty historical events.

Now this is just how I want the game to be like, but I trust Paradox.

 

[shadow737]

I'll use an old example from EUII, if I convert a game over from CK, why the hell should I have to choose whether England imprisons Mary Queen of Scots when thats got nothing to do with me, why are they asking about some War of Jenkins Ear? I have great relations with Spain

Yes this would be bizarre, however what about an event involving a heretical faith appearing in your empire challenging your imperial priests authority if you developed a system such as the Egyptian religious system?

Would that not make sense?

Edit: Ancient Egypt and Classical Era Egypt both used a religiously-based political system where the Pharoah gained much of his authority from the priesthood of the nation so a challenge to that authority could destroy a nation so developed.

 

[durecellrabbit]

They could do that with deterministic events. The only problem with the way those events work is you tend to have to be rather bad at the game or have no idea what you're doing for those events to fire. Hopefully since they're still going to be using them it'll a lot harder to run a perfect ecomony/stability (Without resorting to lots of random -1 stab events) and avoid them.

 

[likk9922]

I agree! I think that EUIII really failed to capture that historical feeling I got from EUII. Perhaps more advanced event triggers were in order, but not a complete revamp of the idea of events!

Please, at least make a moderately historical Rome game...

 

[unmerged(82715)]

Wall of text crits you for 100000.
You die.

Oh wait, wrong game, wrong forum.

Try adding a little punctuation and paragraphs to your posts, Makes it a lot easier on the eye.

About the no historic events option I only have to say this: Paradox Games are centered around the idea of making your own history with a nation of your choosing. Why should you want any historic events to frankly ruin your game experience.

I wish they don't have to include any events in this game at all (maybe the random ones) and that the game engine will be able to simulate any possibility without having to use events at all.

That being said: If you want history go read a book.

Perfect. Couldn't possibly agree more. I don't want to play through a history book.

 

[HannibalBarca]

I agree! I think that EUIII really failed to capture that historical feeling I got from EUII. Perhaps more advanced event triggers were in order, but not a complete revamp of the idea of events!

Please, at least make a moderately historical Rome game...

Really, people we should have expected it.

 

[Mannisks]

Hm, I wonder, does any of you people out there who wants historical events ever think of how boring and empty it was to play small countries without historical events in EU2? That's a major argument against it, I think.

 

[ComradeOm]

It's not all that hard really.

No, it would just require an entire new set of events (over a couple of centuries) to represent an alternative Mediterranean dominated by Carthage. Nothing really.

That's the limitation with scripted events - what happens when Carthage wins the Second Punic War? The game does not know. It is unable to represent a Carthaginian hegemony because it has not been told how to. Your game would effectively end with your victory. Even worse Rome would continue to get events detailing its great conquests in the East... even though it had long lost its superpower status!