shorter time frame!?

[Swuul]

I'd really like to see Napoleonic era in the game. Even if it can't be modelled correctly. One of the best parts of EU2 MP were the Nappy games that would last a couple hours where people could hone their war-making skills.

What about if the game had a decent 30 YW scenario? Drooool.... Now *that* would be a true MP game where one could sharpen his war-making skills in a true EUish manner, and not some stupid "First player to buy a million men and 20000 cannons wins!"...

 

[Lurken]

Observe also that CK(1066-1453) EUIII(1453-1792(?)) and Vicky(1836-1920), they have created a gap between EUIII and Vicky enable a Revolutions game.

 

[Josephus I]

I think it's a good idea to "shorter time frame". I would like to have Eu1 one back. In 1492 every thing was more united and more balanced that's why I'm using 1492 scenario in Eu2

I always played with the 1492 scenario as well. I never liked the early one. Obviously the dudes at P'Dox thought long and hard about this, and I think it is the right step.

 

[KaRei]

Observe also that CK(1066-1453) EUIII(1453-1792(?)) and Vicky(1836-1920), they have created a gap between EUIII and Vicky enable a Revolutions game.

Aah, that's the reason why it is moved to 1453. A commercial movement. They want that we buy all their games. Clever :rofl:

EDIT: Hearts of Iron are covering 20th century, am I right?

 

[Thanak]

1453, because:
...
- frailty of the future majors : in 1419, the future major powers are too weak, and often there's one or more missing their formation, or minors gaining too much power
...

That's exactly why I liked the 1419 start

What if you have a united scandinavia that part in the colonisation race ?
What if Bizantium manage to reverse their losing trend and start growing again ?
What if through fighting and political manoeuvres, Germany get united early ?
...

The shorted frame limit how much you can alter the course of history.

 

[Jayavarman]

That's exactly why I liked the 1419 start

What if you have a united scandinavia that part in the colonisation race ?
What if Bizantium manage to reverse their losing trend and start growing again ?
What if through fighting and political manoeuvres, Germany get united early ?

Those what-ifs unsettled the game too much and were improperly modeled. Better leave it to a mod or even some other game.

 

[Lurken]

Aah, that's the reason why it is moved to 1453. A commercial movement. They want that we buy all their games. Clever :rofl:

EDIT: Hearts of Iron are covering 20th century, am I right?

Correct. With HoI1&2 covering 1936-1948, and HoI2D covering 1948-1953(?)

 

[Skarion]

Hearts of Iron are covering 20th century, am I right?

1936-1948 (?).

With Doomsday it will be most of the 20th century I think.

So it will then be a second hole between 1920 and 1936 which I consider that is an interest time for a political simulation?

 

[Jayavarman]

1936-1948 (?).

With Doomsday it will be most of the 20th century I think.

So it will then be a second hole between 1920 and 1936 which I consider that is an interest time for a political simulation?

Except few will buy it.

BTW, HoI II: Doomday (1936-1953)

 

[unmerged(28894)]

Unlikely. Not that many strategy gamers want to play a game where they get shafted by the Wall Street Crash and the nations are mostly too exhausted to fight.

More likely options would be a Roman/pre-Roman game or (my personal favourite but sadly pretty damn implausible.) Both these two however would require a massive amount of reworking of the engine.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

Unlikely. Not that many strategy gamers want to play a game where they get shafted by the Wall Street Crash and the nations are mostly too exhausted to fight.

More likely options would be a Roman/pre-Roman game or (my personal favourite but sadly pretty damn implausible.) Both these two however would require a massive amount of reworking of the engine.

And what is it, your favourite ?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Well I, and many others, feel that such a reduction will actually increase the value of the simulation as it can focus on getting a shorter period right and not on having to get the extremes right which it can't model sufficiently anyway.

Right on dude!


The shorter time period the less you have to dilute/generalize the game to account for the outliers. There are enough difficult situations in the proposed time frame that we don't need more difficult situations to deal with. It seems to me to be an ideal time frame.

 

[George LeS]

I don't see the big deal over this. I think it's pretty universally agreed that 1450-1790 are about the limits of what the EU combat system simulates, but after all, there'll be plenty of mods stretching in both directions. & we can always reload EU2.

 

[unmerged(14180)]

As a Byzantine Lover I am not overly impressed, but this is essentially a war between the 'GameBook' crowd and the 'Alternative World' crowd. I can understand everyone wanting a History like setting to START in but having all the nations doing all the same things isn't really a turn on is it?

Let the Ottomans DIE! or become UNSTOPPABLE, either way someone else will fill the void....If the Ottomans started out with a pink and yellow flag and Catholic religion i could understand people getting the pitchforks out.

'Sniff' I will miss you Byzantines, and all the other poor deadbeats who went down in the years 1419-1453.....I will never be able to ruthlessly tear you into modernity and make you great again, or crash and burn while inflation hits 100%, because, you see, Straight after 1453, the economy, the military, hell, everything changed! IT ALL CHANGED!!

Since i hardly ever got to Nappy, you can take him and his crown to the creek for all i care.

 

[BiB]

it is an immense difference between warfare in 1453 and 1789.

Yes, so it is already hard to get that right, let alone also adding on more medieval and Napoleontic tactics and changes on top of it.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

Let the Ottomans DIE! or become UNSTOPPABLE, either way someone else will fill the void....

This isn't working now. If the OE has the least difficulties early on, they'll never achieve their role, and this will unbalance the power in Eastern Europe (especially in Hungary/Austria).

 

[arcorelli]

This discussion is bizarre. I just read the whole thread and did not detect any specific problem that meant we should use a more limited timespan. Only generalised statements of people implicating they understand the game and have the ability to make general statements without presenting evidence supporting their view.

Give a precise description of a specific problem and then we can discuss how to solve it. I would guess that it is never so that to reduce the timespan is the only possible solution to the problem.

However it may be the cheapest. But no final judgement can be made until the problems are defined.

Er, Nappy period is really, really not that well simulated:

1. Early modern warfare is about sieges, so that part of EU2 works. Nappy warfare was all about the uber-battles, so the whole war engine do not work. Nappy scenarios are extremely fun to play, now they got no relation with Nappy period.
2. Religion was not that relevant in the end of the XVIII century. So there is a lot about religion effects that do not have sense there. (Using EU2 examples, although prolly religion effect will be different in EU3: Stab costs, loss of tax income do not a lot of sense for, let say, England with a large indian empire). And defender of the faith really do not make a lot of sense in 1800.
3. CB system. Now, the whole core-embargo thing really do not work. Nappy scenario start with everyone at war so np, in MP is common to give cores to simulate CB. But really, it doesn't work.
4. Nappy start the period of large conscript armies that is quite different of professional (and mercs) armies before.

There is a lot of differences in warfare, society in the Nappy period regarding the centuries before. An engine that simulates well the early modern period (and that is what EU is about in the end), can't simulate well the Nappy period. The revolution period (USA independende, industrial revolution, french revolution, Nappy) is the beginning of another kind of society. That could need another engine to simulate.

The only thing about lacking a Nappy time is the fact that we could lack the 'whole uber-Nappy war' thing that is last session in MP. But I guess it can be replaced with other thing.

 

[unmerged(14180)]

Ambassador:

I thought we were talking about EU3 here? Yes, what you say in EU2 can be a pain unless someone else steps into their shoes but from what i have read EU3 will be an entirely new engine. I would hope that the main reason for an engine change would be because of AI improvements rather than just some flashy 3D graphics.

 

[Skarion]

Except few will buy it.

I don't think that.

Ever played the game "Republic: The Reveloution"?

If you know any basics of it's history, it was claimed to be the first true game there you could pick whatever political background and then use whatever means to take over the voters in the area and finally take control over the country by politics as communists, nationalists, capitalists, whatever.

This game was produced by the rather unknown Elixir, but stil the game sold all over the world.

In Sweden the game got sold out after a week. Couldn't be found in any store anywhere.

Finally found a copy myself in Stockholm two months after it was given out.

Sadly this game was really bad as it couldn't come close to the political promises Elixir promised and instead looks like a awful GTA copy with almost no violence to speak off.

But the basic thing is, this game was able to sell everywhere until people understood it was bad, just because it was new, it was different AND it was promising a true political game.

IF Paradox could simulate the political game which was to lead up to the rise of Stalin, Hitler and so on, I think it could be a bestseller.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

Ambassador:

I thought we were talking about EU3 here? Yes, what you say in EU2 can be a pain unless someone else steps into their shoes but from what i have read EU3 will be an entirely new engine. I would hope that the main reason for an engine change would be because of AI improvements rather than just some flashy 3D graphics.

I know we're talking about EU3, but seeing the differences between EU1 and EU2, I doubt that the points I issue would easily be solved in EU3. Differences between 1453 and 1789 are already big, even gigantic in some areas. But extending past these boundaries is only making it worse.

Moreover, when I point that the type of game would be radically different compared to the 1453-1789 era, I don't see how a different engine would solve this. Nappy is all about war, nothing more, nothing less. EU is about a combination of war, economy, diplomacy.