Regarding the Pacific and Australia...
- Thread starter Sir Humphrey
- 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.
Even if it is, it won't be something most people can do. I base this on other 3-D games that can have moddable maps. Atleast if you want to make any signifigant changes.Havard said:
Well, I would not mod a map that would remove all of PTI. I believe PTI serves a very important function.Yakman said:But that's why we have hard working modders like yourself Jinnai
Uh, all other Pdox games without PTI seem to manage just fine. Whats the big deal. So what if you don't want to colinise there, or the AI ignores it. It should be available to be colonized and used.
If you guys made the map moddable you know you would be loved by all and get more fan mail then you guys can handel...you know this dont you?Havard said:
Becayuse they are in an era when PTI didn't exist. In 1789 PTI existed not only because certain areas weren't explored, but also couldn't be explored and, more improtantly, couldn't be viable for either economic gain, non-indingious large scale population center and/or were impossible to have a non-native, mostly european-style, army trampling through it like it was just some european province they knew quite well and different have to worry abotu different and exotic diseases, weather patterns and climates and general lay of the land.Sir Humphrey said:
Have you played Victoria?
What a load of sentimental rubbish. What do you have against it? Its not like its going to destory the game. It would make it alot more interesting, better for mods, and better alternatives. If you want a stage play of history, read a book. At the same time, lets rigdily impliment events with no alt choices, and reduce the player to pressing three buttons as the time ticks by, with the Ai doing everythign exactly as history would have it do.
What a load of sentimental rubbish. What do you have against it? Its not like its going to destory the game. It would make it alot more interesting, better for mods, and better alternatives. If you want a stage play of history, read a book. At the same time, lets rigdily impliment events with no alt choices, and reduce the player to pressing three buttons as the time ticks by, with the Ai doing everythign exactly as history would have it do.
Jinnai said:
I hate the PTI in EU2 - fair enough I see your point about europeans would find it impossible to explore/explote some areas in this time frame - but what if you play a non european nation. Like some of the Native Amerian tribes why can't they explore over the next hill - how hard can that be? Or sub saharan african nations, I know they didn't do it historically (well maybe explored but not colonise) but then all they have to do is put the colonise price up or make more attrition when exploring. Plus in my opinion half the fun is doing remarakable things with a nation like colonising somewhere they never should have. If players want to play historically of course you can. The AI should be strong enough to explore/colonise profitable areas primarily anyway (as previously argued).
Sir Humphrey said:
Books don't have those neat little guys marching across the map.
Or such a clear interface.Sonny said:Books don't have those neat little guys marching across the map.
Yakman said:
I realise you're probably not trying to imply anything, but I object to your characterisation of the Maori as 'bloodthirsty'. They settled a treaty with the British, which was then broken by 'landhungry' settlers who the Maori resisted with great courage.
The term 'bloodthirsty' implies 'savage', which is what I find objectionable. I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, I just think it's important to set the record straight.
NPJ said:
Maybe he meant "Very high aggressiveness"
But you're right of course to pick up on things like this in my opinion. Unfortunately the history of indigenous people is often written by their usurpers - so we get an obviously tainted viewpoint. Perhaps a more comfortable term would be "warlike" or "fierce" doesn't have as many bad connotations but also still conveying their battle skills.