Please don’t dumb this game down like EU3

[OHgamer]

re the map - one can definitely say the current map system based on EU3 is not "Dumbed down" - if anything it has been made much more flexible and user-friendly compared to the old map system, which requires very specialized tools and hours of work to effect even the smallest graphical changes - check out the various map mods that have been developed since the release of EU3, in particular the MEIOU mod, to see what can be done with the new map system, and remember that with the HoI3 map there will be a much bigger canvas to work on compared to EU3.

Compared to the absolute pain in the rear trying to mod the EU2-engine based maps where everything is hardcoded and integrally part of the drawn map, the maps in the EU3 engine are much, much, much easier to edit to your own personal preferences. Province names are no longer drawn on the map as in the EU2-series maps, but are a graphic element over the map, much the way sprites are. The map itself is much easier to mod, just redraw the base province map (and adjust the topography and river maps if felt needed, though those are separate and thus can be left as is when changing province borders) and voila, you can change the map.

Now, all this flexibility does come at a price - because the smallest graphical unit is a pixel, and most provinces are going to be only a few dozen pixels square at most, there is going to be a degree of "blockiness" to the map that simply can not be avoided. Even with the HoI3 map being 3x the size of the EU3 map, the simple reality is that the overall size of the map means that a pixel in size will be more than a few dozen square miles, making it rather more difficult to represent a potential perfectly "smooth" border. It would only be possible to have "smooth" borders if the base map were to be something say 9x the size of the EU3 map (something say the size of the Clio map project I'm working on for Victoria, which has dimensions of approx 30Kx12K pixels), so that individual pixels represent a much smaller area of land and even the smallest provinces would be several hundred square pixels square in size. And a map that size, with all of the functionalities of the EU3 map, would likely require everyone to have super-power graphics cards that few today have. Most computers, facing a map as large as Clio based on EU3's map structure, would probably seize up.

In the end, if the exchange has to be made between artisitic look and functionality, I'd say the better choice is to go with functionality, not just because it means that many more systems will be able to use the maps in game, but because it means the map itself will be customizable to a degree almost unimaginable before the release of EU3 a couple years back. And this is not just a perk for the modders, even casual players can benefit by being able to make quick changes to maps like changing province names, the location of sprites and the like, with only a couple minutes of file tweaking. Hopefully in a few years, the technology will increase further so that you can have even larger base maps than the proposed HoI3 one, and once that happens, and the pixel ends up representing a much smaller area of real estate, will you be able to have those "smooth" borders that the EU2, Victoria and HoI2 maps have.

 

[unmerged(113318)]

re the map - one can definitely say the current map system based on EU3 is not "Dumbed down" - if anything it has been made much more flexible and user-friendly compared to the old map system, which requires very specialized tools and hours of work to effect even the smallest graphical changes - check out the various map mods that have been developed since the release of EU3, in particular the MEIOU mod, to see what can be done with the new map system, and remember that with the HoI3 map there will be a much bigger canvas to work on compared to EU3.

Compared to the absolute pain in the rear trying to mod the EU2-engine based maps where everything is hardcoded and integrally part of the drawn map, the maps in the EU3 engine are much, much, much easier to edit to your own personal preferences. Province names are no longer drawn on the map as in the EU2-series maps, but are a graphic element over the map, much the way sprites are. The map itself is much easier to mod, just redraw the base province map (and adjust the topography and river maps if felt needed, though those are separate and thus can be left as is when changing province borders) and voila, you can change the map.

Now, all this flexibility does come at a price - because the smallest graphical unit is a pixel, and most provinces are going to be only a few dozen pixels square at most, there is going to be a degree of "blockiness" to the map that simply can not be avoided. Even with the HoI3 map being 3x the size of the EU3 map, the simple reality is that the overall size of the map means that a pixel in size will be more than a few dozen square miles, making it rather more difficult to represent a potential perfectly "smooth" border. It would only be possible to have "smooth" borders if the base map were to be something say 9x the size of the EU3 map (something say the size of the Clio map project I'm working on for Victoria, which has dimensions of approx 30Kx12K pixels), so that individual pixels represent a much smaller area of land and even the smallest provinces would be several hundred square pixels square in size. And a map that size, with all of the functionalities of the EU3 map, would likely require everyone to have super-power graphics cards that few today have. Most computers, facing a map as large as Clio based on EU3's map structure, would probably seize up.

In the end, if the exchange has to be made between artisitic look and functionality, I'd say the better choice is to go with functionality, not just because it means that many more systems will be able to use the maps in game, but because it means the map itself will be customizable to a degree almost unimaginable before the release of EU3 a couple years back. And this is not just a perk for the modders, even casual players can benefit by being able to make quick changes to maps like changing province names, the location of sprites and the like, with only a couple minutes of file tweaking. Hopefully in a few years, the technology will increase further so that you can have even larger base maps than the proposed HoI3 one, and once that happens, and the pixel ends up representing a much smaller area of real estate, will you be able to have those "smooth" borders that the EU2, Victoria and HoI2 maps have.

So if it so easy why Paradox team doesn't want to spend some little time (as you say) and make map really good?

 

[unmerged(87962)]

IMHO if a "bad" MAP can make you not want to play a game then, really should you be playing it because obviously you don't REALLY like the game. If all you care about it a map the go play Risk or the Civilization board game. Really, if you look at EU3 and the ONLY you don't like about it is the map, then that's a GREAT game (That was not a bash of EU3). In short, the MAP should be the LEAST of your worries about a new game.

 

[sbr]

So if it so easy why Paradox team doesn't want to spend some little time (as you say) and make map really good?

Number one, what I think is a brilliant beautiful map you might think sucks rocks, which one of us should P'dox make happy?

I would much rather have them spend time on other parts of the game than the map. What should they NOT work on to improve the map? The AI? The promised deeper Logistical and Combat systems? Better MP support? I would rather play a brilliant game on a "so-so" map then play a piece of crap on a pice of art map.

 

[unmerged(113318)]

IMHO if a "bad" MAP can make you not want to play a game then, really should you be playing it because obviously you don't REALLY like the game. If all you care about it a map the go play Risk or the Civilization board game. Really, if you look at EU3 and the ONLY you don't like about it is the map, then that's a GREAT game (That was not a bash of EU3). In short, the MAP should be the LEAST of your worries about a new game.

I like the game for many reasons - good map looking is one of the main of them but of course not determinant. And besides if a lot of people are saying that map is not good (and all that peoples are potential customers) it means that something need to be done with the map.

 

[Gunny123]

When lots of little things nag at you about a game then you look at the map and it's bad it can make you want to turn it off.

I will say it again, I have not played EU3 since about two months after release. Reading these posts I have to admit I kind of want to install it again and try the updates. But I keep thinking to myself that I should only purchase expansions for games I like not to make a game I'm disapointed in a little less disapointing...

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

When lots of little things nag at you about a game then you look at the map and it's bad it can make you want to turn it off.

I will say it again, I have not played EU3 since about two months after release. Reading these posts I have to admit I kind of want to install it again and try the updates. But I keep thinking to myself that I should only purchase expansions for games I like not to make a game I'm disapointed in a little less disapointing...

But you still haven't made clear, why you consider EUIII a dumbed down version of EU2. A bad looking map has IMHO nothing to do with a dumbed down version. The same goes for the 'lack of events', which I presume means the lack of 'EU2 historical events'.

In EU3 you have more of everything, more provinces, more nations, more years to play, more buildings to built, more government-types, more decisions, more diplomatic options, more missions, more game options. So to me there is nothing that indicates a 'dumbed down version'.

 

[Merrivale]

The problem here is that too many people are equating "I didn't like it" to "dumbed down". Changes that are not, in fact, a dumbing down, like map to 3d or events to context are treated as such because people disagreed with them and preferred the old way.

Posters like the OP would get a lot farther with their arguments if they said "Please don't go the direction of EU3, I didn't like it" rather than this dumbing down nonsense.

 

[bbasgen]

Missing the real question

The question of whether or not HOI3 is heading in an EU3 direction was long ago answered: it isn't going to happen! Paradox has very clearly stated (and provided lots of examples) that all added complexity and depth will be warfare centric, and that is the crux of an anti-EU3 fear.

In HOI, the strategic depth of the game is centered on warfare. In Victoria, the strategic depth of the game is centered on economics. In EU, there is no strategic depth. Instead, it touches on a wide variety of areas (politics to religion, colonization to trade, warfare to diplomacy, etc), in a way that is 'superficial' relative to HOI or Victoria like focus.

I think some of us are spoiled by HOI and Vicky. We love strategic depth, whether in warfare, economics, or probably anywhere else. Generalized strategy games are no longer good enough for some of us -- the challenge just isn't there. True, strategy geeks are a small audience, and an EU has a broader appeal a la Civilization. That's okay, but don't loose sight of things in Paradox land. EU is a good game to make generalist. HOI or Victoria or CK would be very dull and uninteresting in a generalist format. Paradox, unlike most game companies, is smart enough to realize that. So, stop worrying. HOI3 will have even more strategic depth -- the exact kind you are looking for -- than HOI2.

 

[unmerged(12990)]

I too thought of EU3 as dumbed down.

Not so sure about that anymore. I intensely dislike the game yes, but I wouldnt call it dumbed down.
Although I hear In Nomine made it a lot better. But Im not inclined to buying it. I played EU3 for about 2 weeks and havent run it since, except once or twice to play MP with my brother.

 

[rommel_sniper]

Im sorry for the inconviniences but exacly what means "dumbed-down"?

 

[OHgamer]

So if it so easy why Paradox team doesn't want to spend some little time (as you say) and make map really good?

I guess I'd have to ask you what you mean by "really good".

If you mean perfectly smooth borders that follow intricate lines of rivers or national borders, then it's likely not going to be possible, because a pixel on the map for the game simply represents too large an area of land to capture the intricate curves that most national or putative provincial borders have, and since the pixel is the smallest graphical unit size (that I'm aware of at least), you can't split a pixel to make a boundary line "flow" better. Thus given the size of the canvas the map is being developed on, there is still going to remain a bit of "blockiness," much less than in EU3, but more than in the EU2 or Victoria maps.

If the map was say the size of the Victoria map (approx 30,000 pixels by 12,000 pixels) then you could have much more natural "flowing" borders, but with the HoI3 map being only 3x the size of the EU3 map, and thus only about half the size of the Victoria map, pixels simply will represent too large a piece of land to allow for intricate borders.

Now, you can argue that Paradox could make the map even bigger. My guess is that to make the map even larger would require such high video card demands as to make whatever game produced outside the realm of the playable for the vast majority of potential customers. And one I would think prefer a game that did not require the absolute gold standard of video cards just to be able to play. So Paradox is making the best map they can that still also allows all of the new functionality that the EU3 map system provides, including much more advanced modding functionality compared to the old EU2-era maps.

Maybe one day in a few years the technological needs that a 30Kx12K map that does all the things the EU3 engine maps can do will become "standard" in the video cards most players have. But we are likely not there yet, and the result is that the borders in this map system will retain a degree of "blockiness" because of the ratio of pixel size to geographic area covered. Compared to what EU3's map is, the HoI3 map is a vast improvement in being less blocky between borders, but there are simply limits to what is capable with the map that some may feel makes it less "aesthetically pleasing" than the HoI2 or Victoria maps, but which at the same time, makes the map a whole deal more accessible to the players to make changes. In the end, if its a battle between form and function, function wins.

 

[unmerged(74599)]

The problem here is that too many people are equating "I didn't like it" to "dumbed down". Changes that are not, in fact, a dumbing down, like map to 3d or events to context are treated as such because people disagreed with them and preferred the old way.

Posters like the OP would get a lot farther with their arguments if they said "Please don't go the direction of EU3, I didn't like it" rather than this dumbing down nonsense.

I agree its not about "dumbing down". Complexity does not necessarily make a smart game. A simple game framework can be very complex. Chess Backgammon, Diplomacy and Risk are examples of games that are based on a very simple structures that create complex puzzle dynamics. These games are classic because the human intellect is employed in a simple system to create complex dynamics, with numerous possibilities created by the players themselves. This is what is most engaging about them.

EU II achieved this.

EU II was also very handsome, in a simple way.

In HOI, the strategic depth of the game is centered on warfare. In Victoria, the strategic depth of the game is centered on economics. In EU, there is no strategic depth. Instead, it touches on a wide variety of areas (politics to religion, colonization to trade, warfare to diplomacy, etc), in a way that is 'superficial' relative to HOI or Victoria like focus.

Right, and the "superficiality", allowed for more intellectual engagement, and less twiddling than, say, Civilization, which as the game wore on became a tedious ant-farm management system that you stuck with to the very end as a kind of personal challenge of your will power to overcome boredom motivated by your previous investement of time and energy.

It's very possible to add a lot of new and cool "flavour" features to a game, but at the same time distract from the meat of what makes a game.

An example: HOI actually improved as a game when the tech tree was rationalized in HOI II. What was a fun and interesting distraction at first, eventually became an annoying distraction from the essential core of the game, once you figured out how it worked and it lost its curiosity factor.

 

[bbasgen]

Right, and the "superficiality", allowed for more intellectual engagement, and less twiddling than, say, Civilization, which as the game wore on became a tedious ant-farm management system that you stuck with to the very end as a kind of personal challenge of your will power to overcome boredom motivated by your previous investement of time and energy.

:rofl: Well stated!

I think some folks tend to conflate arguments at times. Sure, EU3 had pretty serious issues with v1.0 and even through to v1.3. But that is yesterday's issue, and frankly could be much better expressed if it is truly a concern.

 

[unmerged(52694)]

I guess I'd have to ask you what you mean by "really good".

If you mean perfectly smooth borders that follow intricate lines of rivers or national borders, then it's likely not going to be possible, because a pixel on the map for the game simply represents too large an area of land to capture the intricate curves that most national or putative provincial borders have, and since the pixel is the smallest graphical unit size (that I'm aware of at least), you can't split a pixel to make a boundary line "flow" better. Thus given the size of the canvas the map is being developed on, there is still going to remain a bit of "blockiness," much less than in EU3, but more than in the EU2 or Victoria maps.

If the map was say the size of the Victoria map (approx 30,000 pixels by 12,000 pixels) then you could have much more natural "flowing" borders, but with the HoI3 map being only 3x the size of the EU3 map, and thus only about half the size of the Victoria map, pixels simply will represent too large a piece of land to allow for intricate borders.

Now, you can argue that Paradox could make the map even bigger. My guess is that to make the map even larger would require such high video card demands as to make whatever game produced outside the realm of the playable for the vast majority of potential customers. And one I would think prefer a game that did not require the absolute gold standard of video cards just to be able to play. So Paradox is making the best map they can that still also allows all of the new functionality that the EU3 map system provides, including much more advanced modding functionality compared to the old EU2-era maps.

Maybe one day in a few years the technological needs that a 30Kx12K map that does all the things the EU3 engine maps can do will become "standard" in the video cards most players have. But we are likely not there yet, and the result is that the borders in this map system will retain a degree of "blockiness" because of the ratio of pixel size to geographic area covered. Compared to what EU3's map is, the HoI3 map is a vast improvement in being less blocky between borders, but there are simply limits to what is capable with the map that some may feel makes it less "aesthetically pleasing" than the HoI2 or Victoria maps, but which at the same time, makes the map a whole deal more accessible to the players to make changes. In the end, if its a battle between form and function, function wins.

And to be fair, higher graphical requisites and a "prettier" map would be construed as "dumbing down" and playing to some "immature" audience by many.


Edit: The only thing I miss now from the old EU2 map is the sea monsters.

 

[unmerged(113318)]

I guess I'd have to ask you what you mean by "really good".

If you mean perfectly smooth borders that follow intricate lines of rivers or national borders, then it's likely not going to be possible, because a pixel on the map for the game simply represents too large an area of land to capture the intricate curves that most national or putative provincial borders have, and since the pixel is the smallest graphical unit size (that I'm aware of at least), you can't split a pixel to make a boundary line "flow" better. Thus given the size of the canvas the map is being developed on, there is still going to remain a bit of "blockiness," much less than in EU3, but more than in the EU2 or Victoria maps.

If the map was say the size of the Victoria map (approx 30,000 pixels by 12,000 pixels) then you could have much more natural "flowing" borders, but with the HoI3 map being only 3x the size of the EU3 map, and thus only about half the size of the Victoria map, pixels simply will represent too large a piece of land to allow for intricate borders.

Now, you can argue that Paradox could make the map even bigger. My guess is that to make the map even larger would require such high video card demands as to make whatever game produced outside the realm of the playable for the vast majority of potential customers. And one I would think prefer a game that did not require the absolute gold standard of video cards just to be able to play. So Paradox is making the best map they can that still also allows all of the new functionality that the EU3 map system provides, including much more advanced modding functionality compared to the old EU2-era maps.

Maybe one day in a few years the technological needs that a 30Kx12K map that does all the things the EU3 engine maps can do will become "standard" in the video cards most players have. But we are likely not there yet, and the result is that the borders in this map system will retain a degree of "blockiness" because of the ratio of pixel size to geographic area covered. Compared to what EU3's map is, the HoI3 map is a vast improvement in being less blocky between borders, but there are simply limits to what is capable with the map that some may feel makes it less "aesthetically pleasing" than the HoI2 or Victoria maps, but which at the same time, makes the map a whole deal more accessible to the players to make changes. In the end, if its a battle between form and function, function wins.

Well OK, using even these engine is possible to create map with more beautiful province borders. So it just depends on Paradox team.

 

[Powerslave]

I understand what the OP are saying even if I dont agree with him. EU3 wasn't dumbed down. I too was disappointed with EU3 when it was released. Not because of the map cause I really don't care about graphics. Not because of the events or the new leader/monarch system either, I actually thought that was the best change of all, I hated those "historical" events that always fired in ahistorical situations in EU2. Now events make more sence. And btw there are actually more events in EU3 at release than it was in EU2 and now with IN there are even more.

No I disliked EU3 because it was too much sandbox and playing different nations wasn't feeling any different. It just felt blaha blaha. With In Nomine that all change and I know consider EU3 with its expansion one of the best game ever.

 

[The Great Duck]

Im sorry for the inconviniences but exacly what means "dumbed-down"?

It means making the game a lot simpler and less complicated than the past games to appeal to wider masses.

 

[Raczynski]

It means making the game a lot simpler and less complicated than the past games to appeal to wider masses.

Thought a lot of people in this thread think that it means "making changes to the game I don't like"

 

[unmerged(58571)]

Well OK, using even these engine is possible to create map with more beautiful province borders. So it just depends on Paradox team.

... which I hope will spend more effort on important things, such as AI, than on moving province borders a few pixels here and there.