arcorelli said:
Well. It's the only way it will ever be remotelly realistic to play this period.
I would say that most like some sort of personallity anyway.
bm
Please don't make EUIII into Vicky II
- Thread starter daedalus
- 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.
Well. It's the only way it will ever be remotelly realistic to play this period.
I would say that most like some sort of personallity anyway.
bm
If there is going to be a dynasty element in EUIII, it should be much simpler than in CK. For example, you shouldn't lose the game if another family takes over the empire via succession. That would be silly in an EU game.
Gelatinous Cube said:
I agree with that. Some kind of the middle of the road solution is all I ask for.
It's like what Johan wrote; "Player should have more to do inbetween wars". This is the missing puzzle piece
.bm
I think that EU3 should have as little micromanagement as EU2, but I still want as much possibilities to micromanagement if I would like to.
Therefore I would like the possibilities of POPs in EU3, which could be used as to simulate conversations and cultural takeovers, but of course, the POPs shouldn't be nessecery to win the game and should only be a way for you to check how your work is going on a more procentuell level.
Therefore I would like the possibilities of POPs in EU3, which could be used as to simulate conversations and cultural takeovers, but of course, the POPs shouldn't be nessecery to win the game and should only be a way for you to check how your work is going on a more procentuell level.
EU2 was 'little' micromanagement???? It's a TON of micromanagement, and a lot of it can be streamlined. Nobody wants to cycle through all their provinces doing lame things. We want to fight, to explore, to build colonies, and make diplomacy, not check on POPs.Skarion said:
EU2 was pretty much 'little' micromanagement. You didn't have to micromanage so much at all, but still have a rather successfull reign as long as you had a rather good basic strategy (Which is impossible in CK and Victoria).
I agree that I want to do those things aswell.
I just would like to have in the ledgar to display the procentage of the population in each province in your nation got of which culture, religion and considered nationality.
This could then be used to use religious tollerance, send in military, build manufacturers etc in which cities, which would in the end hopefully make the culture and religion you would wish to take over the province in captured provinces (In the whole Machiavelli spirit).
You don't want to have any control over stuff around you? Do you seriosly think it would be good if the game did all important stuff for you?Yakman said:
EU2 had close to zero micromanagement, the only thing I can think of that was a bit annoying was placing merchants.
Bluesman said:More important would be to use ideas from CK. Even with it's bugs/crashes I find it to be the most enjoyable Pdox game to date. The RPG elements are what sets it apart from the others. While in EU there were dull moments I almost never have any in CK. There's allways something to look for or after, new plans to make etc.
CK2 with the EU3 engine is a must
bm
I must agree with you here. Incorporating the courtier model of CK into EU would enrich the EU experience wonderfully. When I play CK, I find that I become quite attached to the characters in my court, some I love, some I love to hate, but I follow the course of their lives attentively. In CK, one can't help to see the realm the court presides over as a product of their advantages, shortcomings, and actions, rather than a simple model which the player manipulates to gain the greatest advantages. Vassals rebel, rulers die young, prestigious courtiers come and go, ultimately, it is individuals who shape history. It would be very exciting if Paradox chose to apply this vision to their next installment of EU.
Bluesman said:
Some kind of personality fine (and I agree that can add to the game)
Having to manage a court of X characters it is not (and their endless relations). Unless -as the poster above me- you relate to the characters, unless you really are on playing a RPG, is kind of annoying (if you don't play as RPG you only got several entities with 4 stats that make a lot of noise). And definitely I don't want to play a RPG in EU2. After all, as it has been pointed out, EU2 is about countries not dynasties.
Last edited:
arcorelli said:
I myself can appreciate the point you are making here. The system as it stands in CK can devolve into a game of micromanagement all of its own, something which many, myself sometimes included, become frustrated with. Perhaps some kind of happy balance can be found though. If individual characters are somehow incorporated into EU, they should indeed serve to enrich the gaming experience, to add flavor and perhaps certain technical bonuses to your country. They should not be a means or an end of themselves.
arcorelli said:
Yep. Dont misunderstand me. I'm mostly thinking of derivative ideas here. Using what's worked before but still being EU3. I'm hoping for a CK2 at a later point
.The Genghis Khan 2 level would be perfect. It's still one of the best attempts at emulating dynasties without being overly complex.
bm
Galleblære said:That was funny?
In an ironic sort of way, I think it was. Some people want a game with so little "micromanagement" it would cost depth to the point have having virtually no game. Even if I put aside those aspects of EU II, major or minor, I'm left with a game where I dont do much of anything. The basic idea of the game appeals to me. The time period I like too. But for some reason, it just doesnt hit the spot.
At the risk of taking flak from the good people of the forums here, I think a lot of people just aren't up to the sort of complex and intricate challenge that Victoria presents. Now, that doesnt mean I dont think theyre unskilled or bad players or fools or idiots or anything of the sort. Just that they prefer a different kind of challenge.
Nor would I suggest that EU III become Victoria II. That really a strawman argument Ive been seeing here. I think an EU game could benefit immensely from having aspects of the other paradox games grafted on to it. And that has been hinted at, actually. Of course, the specifics are yet to be known. But this is a sequel, so I hope that something new comes out of it. A lot of people seem to just want a game with new and improved graphics and a few minor adjustments, in other words, a rerun of EUII.
as 2coats puts it:
. What comes out will hinge on a big factor, does paradox want to put out a game guaranteed to satisfy the EU II fanbase, and play it safe, or put out something a lot different and reach a potential wider audience. My guess is that the aim will be a medium somewhere in between these two points, the question is, which will it be closer to?
As long as EUIII isn't EUII, fixes most or any bugs possible, and incorperates what most players considered the good ideas from the other games, while adding some new and intresting stuff (but not so much that it stops being an EU) I'd have no objections.
sainte-therese said:
Its true that a reduction in micromanagement, if done badly, can lead to a reduction in the depth of the game. Sure, in Victoria you had lots of pops running around doing interesting things and adding to the games depth. But the fact that I have to navagate through a series of menus for every single one of them when I make a change doesn't mean the game is more deap than a similar game in which I just had to specify my desired changes in a single menu.
Symmetry said:
Well, no one said that the social classes would need to be converted or what have you. Perhaps they remain basically static Its just that the game could benefit from that sort of thing. This ideas can be approached creatively; no one needs to have a straight transplant of Vic style POPs into an EU game, but the general idea can be adapted. Thats the sort of idea Im trying to express. But few get it because they cant think outside the box. Now, even a member of the dev team made some snide comment that I was proposing that POPs be added just for the sake of making more micromanagment. While no one suggested such a thing, I have to assume that that person just read only the thread title and not the comment, because there is no other explanation. EU II fans have a too proprietarial view of the game, they forget that it has to also appeal to players of other paradox games, as well as altogether new comers.
Arilou said:
For me this goes universal, complexity isn't bad as long as it is "under the hood". I think you need to distinguish between complexity of the underlying engine mechanics (good, if executed properly), complexity of interface (bad) and complexity of micromanagement (bad, if you don't want it). Also I think complexity of micromanagement and engine mechanics should be in balance. No use being able to micromanage tons of things if the mechanics making them interconnect are overly simple/ unlogical/ unrealistic etc. As much as I love Vicky, I think it was somewhat out of balance here.
When I see someone make EU3 suggestions with tables and formulas etc. I see other people reply: "Don't make it too complex though". To me the only limits to complexity of the underlying engine should be available coding time and performance. If the interface is intuitive and a lot of micromanagement can be automated (like with other paradox titles) I don't see a problem.
Complex and interconnected engine mechanics is what attracts me to paradox games. It makes them true strategy games, but if you additionally fancy a management game you can just turn off a lot of the automated features.
magdat said:
Although then you must be careful that the whole thing doesn't turn into an early-modern version of MOO3 (eg. without the cool looking aliens), where you spend hours watching everything of any importance being automated by the underlying algorithms...
First I must say that I like different Paradox games (CK, EU, Vicky & HOI) for different reasons. Sure I think that some ideas could be adopted to EUIII from CK, Vicky and HOI, but at the same time EUIII must follow the legacy of previous two EU games.
I really love to play EUII with my friends. IMHO EU2 works better as MP game than other Paradox titles, because it keeps things simple enough. Vicky for example is much harder in MP, because it's hard to find time to do all the micromanaging. And I think that others wouldn't like it, if I paused game for 30 minutes, just because I want to organize things in my provinces.
I really love to play EUII with my friends. IMHO EU2 works better as MP game than other Paradox titles, because it keeps things simple enough. Vicky for example is much harder in MP, because it's hard to find time to do all the micromanaging. And I think that others wouldn't like it, if I paused game for 30 minutes, just because I want to organize things in my provinces.