Time frame, time frame and time frame once again. Can somebody finally explain to me why it is so important to keep a static time frame? Game will work without it as with it.
shorter time frame!?
- Thread starter unmerged(6638)
- 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.
I like the fact the time frame will be shorter. It means more detailed, focussed gameplay (hopefully). I, for one, won't miss Byzantium very much. 
Because the game can only depict a given number of situations. The game system could be made to fit in perfectly for 1453-1789, but with concepts and solutions to problems that would be completely different that what took place in the Early Middle Ages or in the XXth century. The historical eras are different, meaning the experience is different, and should be.KaRei said:
Making the game too generic is making a Civ game, that doesn't fit in adequately in any given time period. By wishing for too much, you gain too little.
I didn't want that the game will cover larger time scale. I only said that static time frame is not needed. Scenario description files are defining their own local time frames, so no static one is needed. I understand that it will be too much work to make Eu3 for more periods. So I don't want it, and I never did.Ambassador said:Because the game can only depict a given number of situations. The game system could be made to fit in perfectly for 1453-1789, but with concepts and solutions to problems that would be completely different that what took place in the Early Middle Ages or in the XXth century. The historical eras are different, meaning the experience is different, and should be.
Making the game too generic is making a Civ game, that doesn't fit in adequately in any given time period. By wishing for too much, you gain too little.
Static time frame has only one thing to do - unable any scenario to start or end in other date that is defined by the frame. This is good, but only if it is alone. Here are still local time frames of each scenario that doesn't allow you to play behind it's borders. With this second fact, the first one is lossing a role to keep game in right time frame, because scenario description files are doing it.
Only thing that the static time frame is doing now is unabling any scenario to start in other date. But which scenarios? Vanilla scenarios have their local time frames smaller or in same size as the static has. So static time frame will never hit them. It will only hit modded scenarios.
If static time frame will be deleted, it will have no effect to vanilla scenarios. They will still run in their defined local time frames. It will only help mods to be more realistic. Absence of static time frame will allow modders place their mods in right dates. Yes, mods will still use game-play system defined by Paradox (16th, 17th century), but they will be able to run in right time.
Ok, I understand what you tell, but you're wrong. EU2 was meant for 1419-1819, the way EU3 is for 1453-1789. This is the "ideal" period, the one designed as the core of the priorities for concepts and mechanisms.KaRei said:
Yet, EU2 did not limit the game to 1419-1819, you could mod the game for other time periods, and this has been made very often. Just look at the Scenario & Mods subforum, and you'll see dozens of mods & scenarios taking place, at least for a part, outside of 1419-1819.
To the extent of my knowledge, no P'dox game is tied strictly to a set of dates. All can have no-time-limit mods, implying that you can change whatever dates you want.
So, what you call is already what exists. Simply, the one time-period that P'dox will take into consideration to design EU3 is the "targeted" era : 1453-1789 (well, or any other date they might happen to choose, like 1454, 1776, 1792, and so on). This is the period for which game mechanisms and concepts have to be suited for.
OK,
I will make one last post (I stupidly hope for).
Let’s start with KaRei.
Do not believe what they say. Things change most of the time, sometimes a little faster and sometimes a little slower but there is no superbig jumps, as they seem to indicate, at these points in time.
--------------
Not many have achieved to make a problem analysis according to what I wrote earlier. In fact no one has. But some have at least at some points tried and even succeded in defining the problem, i.e. steps 1 and 2. Not bad as a starter I guess although if I had been your employer and stated the task: make an analysis according to this scheme (or argue that a better scheme exists); and you had presented what you did present I would have sacked you, on the spot
I have no time to comment on all statements (this post willl still be one of the longest I have ever written) but will focus on some that on surface appear more interesting.
In what way were they much less medieval and in what way is that a problem? Is a more homogenous military engine an aim of itself? If so why not limit the engine to succesfully mimic the warfare in the 1640s for example? Show evidence that warfare changed more in those 35 years than say the next 35 years or the previous one? Or do not do that but instead tell why that constitutes a problem In short: what is the problem? Remember what I told you: state how it is and how it should be, then you have defined the problem. Here you did not even get stage 1 and 2 properly done.
This is much better: here we have stage 1 and 2 of the analysis done (at least briefly and perhaps not correctly but anyhow, a try to do stage 1 and 2). In case someone forgot what that was it is to state how something is and to state how it should be. E.g. England has more power in 1419 than it should have (or less). Well, then we can go to stage 3. What is so bad about that? Well, probably the answer is: because it does not mimic what did happen and we want the game to do that. OK, no big problem IMO if a nation makes a better or worse effort than it did in reality but let us accept, for the sake of the argument, that we really think this is a big problem. Now we can go to stage 4: what to do about it. Well here you portray it as being troublesome because the only thing they did do weakened them too much. Well, tthe actual reason for the straits between Dover and Calais had in fact nothing to do with the relative strength of FRA and ENG in this time period and thus your reasoning is erronous but we can go on as if it was "correct". You now make the error of giving up; you say the enginge cannot handle it and thus decide that to cut the time frame of the engine is the solution to choose. This is where I am perplexed. Did it not ever occur to you that there is a lot of other things you could do? Like lowering Henry’s stats a little? To give FRA a little more cavalry from start, they had after all a very high number of knights. In fact, I can prolly come up with at least 5 things in 5 seconds that would lower the strength of England less than the strait did in your opinion. Thus your exposition has in now way given evidence that the cutting of the time frame is necessary or that the engine cannot be made to handle it (easily).
Yes, this is true. However, is that bad? And how can a minor gain too much power? Do we really want the history to evolve exactly as it did in RL, in every campaign we play. I certainly do not want that. I consider this not a problem but a bonus. IMO the important thing is that the nations "usually" achieve something similar to what did happen in RL. I believe that if you state what appears to be the underlying principle of your complaint, namely that the nations must perform like they did in RL, then the time frame of the game probably cannot be more than a few decades and the random number generator should probably be skipped. Is that what we want? No, I did not think so.
Yes how nice. I love to have time to work on my sliders and prepare for later actions.
----------
I will dwell shortly upon your 1789 analysis as well. I could write one page for each of your statements but I have to limit myself. I will come back to fortifications later on when I discuss Arcorelli’s post.
First I am not sure what you mean. It would have been good if you had stated what happens in the game and what you believe should happen, i.e. my steps 1 and 2. Now I have to guess. I guess that what you mean is that when playing EU “the Napoleonic Era is a time of …”, not that it was like that in reality. OK. There is a simple reason for this. Since the game ends soon any player with an IQ above 80 do not care about economy, colonisation, BB etc much more. And more important: whichever end year we decide upon we will have the same effect. Please read that sentence twice. It is indeed an important one.
---------------
This is the type of “argument” I opposed against already half a page up. I asked for specific cases to prove your point. There is no need to repeat this stand point. And to state right out of the blue, as it seems, that 1453 to 17whatever is an “ideal time frame” is what shall I say… well I say no more.
BTW, what do you e.g. know about the financial resources of Paradox, which is one of the major components when analysing what should be done about big problems.
-----------
No Arco your basic point of view (that war changes) is relevant. But you exaggerated and ended up erronous.
Early war is not only about sieges, it is about battles, ambushes, tech development, etc. And more important, warfare in the post 1790 era is not only about battles. Both you and Ambassador makes the mistake of claiming it is “all” about battles, big battles. You are blinded by Austerlitz, Wagram, Waterloo etc. The fact is that there were a lot of sieges as well. Had you studied for example the war on the Iberian peninsula you would have known there were numerous sieges. Like those on the Spainish northeast coast where the Frenchies sieged fortresses and cities one after one. The first siege of Zaragossa is one hell of a reading BTW, truly epic. The siege of Cadiz (where the Spanish government sat most of the war) even lasted to the end, i.e. it was never taken. The siege went on for years. Wellington also sieged a lot, like Ciudad de Rodrigo and Bajadoz. And there were sieges in Germany as well.
And in the time in between 1450 anf 1790 there were really decisive battles as well. Take the battle of Breitenfeld in 1631 for example. After that there were no opposing force north of Bayern and Wien and Gustavus Adolphus could almost parade down the Rhine, fortresses and cities giving up or allying. Or the opposite, take Poltava in 1709. Where the Swedish army suffered a devastating defeat (10,000 men succeded to escape from the battle but were taken prisoner some time after the battle, they had nowhere to go).
But there were changes over time, of course. If you compare the war of the Spanish Succession and Napoleonic wars there were differences. But there was also similiarites. Lines of supply and depots of supply were important for both. The question is, if the differences were big enough to give us a problem? None of you arrive at this core of the question because you take the wrong train and claim that it is all about battles and that controlship of areas (i.e. capturing provinces trhough sieges or assaults, as in EU) means nothing.
But again, say we believed it was a problem that the game did not reflect this change that did occur. But why could not the engine be reprogrammed? So that e.g. support limits become higher (one of the effects of capturing a provinces) or that as someone proposed: battle scores was given bigger weigth than the controlship of provinces?
BTW, if Nappy battles are “über-battles”, how do you then describe the battle of Somme in 1916?
And some person other used the word “annhilation” I think. LOL. Generals in all ages have strived to annihilate their opponent. Very few have succeded and it has little to do with the time, we have Cannae and Tannenberg as two possible suggestions, one in 216 BC and one in AD 1914. In fact, there were no battles of annhilation during the 1790 to 1820 time frame as far as I remember.
This is an interesting view. You have a point here. Take “DotF” for example. I believe most of us would claim that is anachronistic in the Western world in 1790 (although it is not in e.g. the muslim world where holy wars occurs now and then, e.g. as late as in the 1880s 1890s in Sudan). But then you fail to make step 3 and 4 of the analysis Arco. It seems you just do not care about my earlier post. You do not do an earnest try to analyse the question. If you had it would have been very easy for you, as it was for me, to come to the conclusion that if this was considered a problem of some weight then we could simply reprogram the DotF feature and make in inaccessible for all christians say after the edict of Tolerance. The “engine” is not a static thing. It is reprogrammable. Some times when I read these posts I start to think that many of you perhaps know so little about programming that you really cannot envisage the possibility that one can reprogram an engine.
The fact that so few of you care to do a proper analysis of all of your arguments means I have little interest in spending time on this. I only reply because my supporters out there may believe I was proved wrong. Fear not my friends.
And note: I have not claimed that 1450 and 1790 are incorrect, I have asked those who claim that we must have a shorter time span to put forward evidence to support their case, evidence of a specific nature that anyone can understand, as especially opposed to the general statements made and whose only claim to truth is the authoritiveness of the one issuing them.
I for one have never cared much about authorities in areas where I can judge things for myself. And so far I see nothing that indicates that it is not so in this case.
------------
But if there are no real reasons of the kind that has been presented in this thread, why have they then limited the time frame? Well I put my money on two things
- many people actually suffer from the misconceptions repeatedly presented in this thread as in other threads during the years (the statement “the game engine cannot cover the different kinds of …. [fill in the appropriate concept, like ‘war’] that existed during these 400 years” are abundant but never have these statements been analysed properly, they are merely expressions of views, not of facts
- Paradox has some kind of plan to release a game filling up the gap between EU and Victoria
I will make one last post (I stupidly hope for).
Let’s start with KaRei.
KaRei said:
Do not believe what they say. Things change most of the time, sometimes a little faster and sometimes a little slower but there is no superbig jumps, as they seem to indicate, at these points in time.
--------------
Not many have achieved to make a problem analysis according to what I wrote earlier. In fact no one has. But some have at least at some points tried and even succeded in defining the problem, i.e. steps 1 and 2. Not bad as a starter I guess although if I had been your employer and stated the task: make an analysis according to this scheme (or argue that a better scheme exists); and you had presented what you did present I would have sacked you, on the spot
I have no time to comment on all statements (this post willl still be one of the longest I have ever written) but will focus on some that on surface appear more interesting.
Ambassador said:
In what way were they much less medieval and in what way is that a problem? Is a more homogenous military engine an aim of itself? If so why not limit the engine to succesfully mimic the warfare in the 1640s for example? Show evidence that warfare changed more in those 35 years than say the next 35 years or the previous one? Or do not do that but instead tell why that constitutes a problem In short: what is the problem? Remember what I told you: state how it is and how it should be, then you have defined the problem. Here you did not even get stage 1 and 2 properly done.
Ambassador said:
This is much better: here we have stage 1 and 2 of the analysis done (at least briefly and perhaps not correctly but anyhow, a try to do stage 1 and 2). In case someone forgot what that was it is to state how something is and to state how it should be. E.g. England has more power in 1419 than it should have (or less). Well, then we can go to stage 3. What is so bad about that? Well, probably the answer is: because it does not mimic what did happen and we want the game to do that. OK, no big problem IMO if a nation makes a better or worse effort than it did in reality but let us accept, for the sake of the argument, that we really think this is a big problem. Now we can go to stage 4: what to do about it. Well here you portray it as being troublesome because the only thing they did do weakened them too much. Well, tthe actual reason for the straits between Dover and Calais had in fact nothing to do with the relative strength of FRA and ENG in this time period and thus your reasoning is erronous but we can go on as if it was "correct". You now make the error of giving up; you say the enginge cannot handle it and thus decide that to cut the time frame of the engine is the solution to choose. This is where I am perplexed. Did it not ever occur to you that there is a lot of other things you could do? Like lowering Henry’s stats a little? To give FRA a little more cavalry from start, they had after all a very high number of knights. In fact, I can prolly come up with at least 5 things in 5 seconds that would lower the strength of England less than the strait did in your opinion. Thus your exposition has in now way given evidence that the cutting of the time frame is necessary or that the engine cannot be made to handle it (easily).
Ambassador said:
Yes, this is true. However, is that bad? And how can a minor gain too much power? Do we really want the history to evolve exactly as it did in RL, in every campaign we play. I certainly do not want that. I consider this not a problem but a bonus. IMO the important thing is that the nations "usually" achieve something similar to what did happen in RL. I believe that if you state what appears to be the underlying principle of your complaint, namely that the nations must perform like they did in RL, then the time frame of the game probably cannot be more than a few decades and the random number generator should probably be skipped. Is that what we want? No, I did not think so.
Ambassador said:
Yes how nice. I love to have time to work on my sliders and prepare for later actions.
----------
I will dwell shortly upon your 1789 analysis as well. I could write one page for each of your statements but I have to limit myself. I will come back to fortifications later on when I discuss Arcorelli’s post.
Ambassador said:
First I am not sure what you mean. It would have been good if you had stated what happens in the game and what you believe should happen, i.e. my steps 1 and 2. Now I have to guess. I guess that what you mean is that when playing EU “the Napoleonic Era is a time of …”, not that it was like that in reality. OK. There is a simple reason for this. Since the game ends soon any player with an IQ above 80 do not care about economy, colonisation, BB etc much more. And more important: whichever end year we decide upon we will have the same effect. Please read that sentence twice. It is indeed an important one.
---------------
Sonny said:
This is the type of “argument” I opposed against already half a page up. I asked for specific cases to prove your point. There is no need to repeat this stand point. And to state right out of the blue, as it seems, that 1453 to 17whatever is an “ideal time frame” is what shall I say…
well I say no more. BTW, what do you e.g. know about the financial resources of Paradox, which is one of the major components when analysing what should be done about big problems.
-----------
arcorelli said:
No Arco your basic point of view (that war changes) is relevant. But you exaggerated and ended up erronous.
Early war is not only about sieges, it is about battles, ambushes, tech development, etc. And more important, warfare in the post 1790 era is not only about battles. Both you and Ambassador makes the mistake of claiming it is “all” about battles, big battles. You are blinded by Austerlitz, Wagram, Waterloo etc. The fact is that there were a lot of sieges as well. Had you studied for example the war on the Iberian peninsula you would have known there were numerous sieges. Like those on the Spainish northeast coast where the Frenchies sieged fortresses and cities one after one. The first siege of Zaragossa is one hell of a reading BTW, truly epic. The siege of Cadiz (where the Spanish government sat most of the war) even lasted to the end, i.e. it was never taken. The siege went on for years. Wellington also sieged a lot, like Ciudad de Rodrigo and Bajadoz. And there were sieges in Germany as well.
And in the time in between 1450 anf 1790 there were really decisive battles as well. Take the battle of Breitenfeld in 1631 for example. After that there were no opposing force north of Bayern and Wien and Gustavus Adolphus could almost parade down the Rhine, fortresses and cities giving up or allying. Or the opposite, take Poltava in 1709. Where the Swedish army suffered a devastating defeat (10,000 men succeded to escape from the battle but were taken prisoner some time after the battle, they had nowhere to go).
But there were changes over time, of course. If you compare the war of the Spanish Succession and Napoleonic wars there were differences. But there was also similiarites. Lines of supply and depots of supply were important for both. The question is, if the differences were big enough to give us a problem? None of you arrive at this core of the question because you take the wrong train and claim that it is all about battles and that controlship of areas (i.e. capturing provinces trhough sieges or assaults, as in EU) means nothing.
But again, say we believed it was a problem that the game did not reflect this change that did occur. But why could not the engine be reprogrammed? So that e.g. support limits become higher (one of the effects of capturing a provinces) or that as someone proposed: battle scores was given bigger weigth than the controlship of provinces?
BTW, if Nappy battles are “über-battles”, how do you then describe the battle of Somme in 1916?
And some person other used the word “annhilation” I think. LOL. Generals in all ages have strived to annihilate their opponent. Very few have succeded and it has little to do with the time, we have Cannae and Tannenberg as two possible suggestions, one in 216 BC and one in AD 1914. In fact, there were no battles of annhilation during the 1790 to 1820 time frame as far as I remember.
arcorelli said:
This is an interesting view. You have a point here. Take “DotF” for example. I believe most of us would claim that is anachronistic in the Western world in 1790 (although it is not in e.g. the muslim world where holy wars occurs now and then, e.g. as late as in the 1880s 1890s in Sudan). But then you fail to make step 3 and 4 of the analysis Arco. It seems you just do not care about my earlier post. You do not do an earnest try to analyse the question. If you had it would have been very easy for you, as it was for me, to come to the conclusion that if this was considered a problem of some weight then we could simply reprogram the DotF feature and make in inaccessible for all christians say after the edict of Tolerance. The “engine” is not a static thing. It is reprogrammable. Some times when I read these posts I start to think that many of you perhaps know so little about programming that you really cannot envisage the possibility that one can reprogram an engine.
The fact that so few of you care to do a proper analysis of all of your arguments means I have little interest in spending time on this. I only reply because my supporters out there may believe I was proved wrong. Fear not my friends.
And note: I have not claimed that 1450 and 1790 are incorrect, I have asked those who claim that we must have a shorter time span to put forward evidence to support their case, evidence of a specific nature that anyone can understand, as especially opposed to the general statements made and whose only claim to truth is the authoritiveness of the one issuing them.
I for one have never cared much about authorities in areas where I can judge things for myself. And so far I see nothing that indicates that it is not so in this case.
------------
But if there are no real reasons of the kind that has been presented in this thread, why have they then limited the time frame? Well I put my money on two things
- many people actually suffer from the misconceptions repeatedly presented in this thread as in other threads during the years (the statement “the game engine cannot cover the different kinds of …. [fill in the appropriate concept, like ‘war’] that existed during these 400 years” are abundant but never have these statements been analysed properly, they are merely expressions of views, not of facts
- Paradox has some kind of plan to release a game filling up the gap between EU and Victoria
I'm a little surprised that they shortened the timeframe too. Not too disappointed, but a little surprised.
What does disappoint me a little though is all this talk about the engine not being able to handle the longer timeframe....excuse me? I could understand that being the case when referring to the current EU engine, but EU3 is supposed to be a completely new engine. Are paradox designing limits in from the start? It seems to me that they should be developing a new engine that can potentially handle everything from the Roman empire to the modern world. Not that I'm suggesting they should be doing EU3, or any other game, that spans that whole period, but if the new engine can adapt to that huge timeframe then Paradox could release a whole new series of historical games based on the new engine without a major redesign for each game. It would seem to make financial as well as gameplay sense.
And it's certainly achieveable. I remember the discussions at the Battlefront forum about the original 'Combat Mission' engine. Battlefront continually stated that they couldn't really do any games too far out of the WW2 timeframe because the engine couldn't handle it, and so they designed a new engine from the groud up for 'Combat Mission 2' They claim that this engine can handle any kind of tactical warfare from the modern age right back to antiquity, and Battlefront aren't a big company with limitless resources either.
What does disappoint me a little though is all this talk about the engine not being able to handle the longer timeframe....excuse me? I could understand that being the case when referring to the current EU engine, but EU3 is supposed to be a completely new engine. Are paradox designing limits in from the start? It seems to me that they should be developing a new engine that can potentially handle everything from the Roman empire to the modern world. Not that I'm suggesting they should be doing EU3, or any other game, that spans that whole period, but if the new engine can adapt to that huge timeframe then Paradox could release a whole new series of historical games based on the new engine without a major redesign for each game. It would seem to make financial as well as gameplay sense.
And it's certainly achieveable. I remember the discussions at the Battlefront forum about the original 'Combat Mission' engine. Battlefront continually stated that they couldn't really do any games too far out of the WW2 timeframe because the engine couldn't handle it, and so they designed a new engine from the groud up for 'Combat Mission 2' They claim that this engine can handle any kind of tactical warfare from the modern age right back to antiquity, and Battlefront aren't a big company with limitless resources either.
Daniel A said:
What a long post Daniel A!
I would take issue with your comments though. There was a distinct change in the way European nations fought at around 1450 and 1790.
Around 1450 the most advanced nations (France, Burgundy) began to develop smaller semi-professional Ordonnance armies which included a greater proportion of trained foot. This was a major deviation from the feudal armies of the middle ages and was driven by a more centralised state infrastructure.
Around 1790 the professional armies began to be replaced by the levee en masse conscripted armies of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. Advances in artillery meant that sieges tended to last a matter of weeks rather than months and the armies became much less dependent on static supply depots. Which allowed for more decisive campaigns. The "total war" pioneered by the French Revolution was radically different from the War of the Fortresses created by Vauban only a century earlier
Also the centralisation of the sate around 1450 had a dramatic change in the economic, scientific and social way of life of the major European powers. As did the advent of the industrial revolution in the early years of the 1800's
I'm sure you could argue a decade or two on either side for the start and end dates - but there is something fundamentally different about the feudal era and the industrial era that is more difficult to model in one coherent game structure.
Derek Pullem said:
Indeed.
One model to bind the lot together is to difficult for the resources and time available if you are going to create a realistic and feasible model to incorporate so many different ages of warfare, let alone mapping out a society model.
The game will be much better without the medieval and revolutionary war element because the resources available to create the model will be less thinly stretched and thus more effective.
Daniel A said:
Oh damn. And now to refute Daniel I will need -instead of making a brief point in 2 lines- to make whole paragraphs? Damn (because, Daniel if I make a brief point in 2 lines about sieges/battles is not because I don't know about sieges in Nappy times and the like is because I am doing a 2 line point)
Daniel A said:
Now we could always make statements like 'war in the XVII century featured long sieges, and usually a campaing was about sieges, with open battles diminishing in importance. But in the Napoleonic period campaigns were usually decided by battles with sieges losing relevance (although obviously there were battles in the XVII century and there were sieges in Nappy times)'.
The thing is that *the* reason why the 80 year war was that long (the Dutch Independence war BTW) was because of the sieges. That the fact -I could quote a lof of spanish generals about it- that even if you won your battles if you didn't sieged and won you didn't won a squat. Even more, you needed to siege a lot -because the damn country was full of fortresses. I could quote Vauban about why European countries usually didn't fall after losing a battle -because a defeated army could always took refuge in fortifications- so unless you took fortifications you were not master of the field. And so on.
Is not like Breitenfield did not happened, or that there was not sieges in the Peninsular war. The thing is after Austerlitz (a battle) the war was decided. After Breitenfield it was not.
And let us recall that siege / battle is one of the differences between the wars in the early modern period and Nappy times. We are talking about countries that are creating their first standing armies, in the end using professional armies against conscripted armies.
If you really want to modelate well how the armies in the XVII and XVIII century fought, you need to do with other engine that to modelate the Nappy times. The current EU2 simulation. that intends to do both things, fails after all: Too large standing armies for the XVII century, too damn large sieges for Nappy times etc.
And do not start with the differences in how logistics were handled, and the relation with the economy and with the civilian population and....
Daniel A said:
As the foolish attempt to go for the decisive battle when you were fighting a giant siege actually (and the battle of the Somme -long in months- and any nappy battle -decided in one of a few days- are completely different beasts)
Daniel A said:
Now did I say that the only problem was the DotF. We could need to make changes in how religion affects RR and income, and stab when you DOW and how you marry, and the all tolerance level thing and... A lot of things that are clearly interesting and kind of historical for XVII century but do not make sense for XIX century
We could always postulate the existence of a uber-engine that can make a lot of changes and transform things, and make some features to disappear in the later years. But actually, I prefer that they make an engine better adapted to the XVI-XVIII centuries without that much worries about late enlightenment years. It makes for a simpler and more focused engine, and then one that can properly modelate (or at least have a better historical feel) for the early modern period.
The entire premise of the world in the EU engine breaks down badly in the late game. You'd need dozens of possible revolter tags for every possible colony, you'd need an entirely seperate military model, etc.
As to pre-1453... playing the 1419 GC almost ALWAYS resulted in big time strangeness in the Ottoman area and the Russian area. It also resulted in England/France issues, since the AI was nearly incapable of finishing the HYW. Let it start in 1453, with most of the Great Powers of the next centuries defined fairly well.
And let it end in 1750... without the American Revolution events. Have it as a possible revolter, just in case the UK screws up (I support having ALL colonial revolters as "possible"), but leave it out.
Then give me a game that goes from 1750-1836. Colonial Revolts, Guerrilla Warfare, Representative Democracy, and Napolean, HURRAH!
As to pre-1453... playing the 1419 GC almost ALWAYS resulted in big time strangeness in the Ottoman area and the Russian area. It also resulted in England/France issues, since the AI was nearly incapable of finishing the HYW. Let it start in 1453, with most of the Great Powers of the next centuries defined fairly well.
And let it end in 1750... without the American Revolution events. Have it as a possible revolter, just in case the UK screws up (I support having ALL colonial revolters as "possible"), but leave it out.
Then give me a game that goes from 1750-1836.
Colonial Revolts, Guerrilla Warfare, Representative Democracy, and Napolean, HURRAH!
Lets separate senarios and engines
From a scenario point of view you might want to start after the hundred years war the fall of byzantium and just possibly the reconquista, but thats got nothing to do with the game engine.
What changed between 1419 and 1453 militarily that the highly abstract battle engine of EU can't handle. In fact what happened between 1419 bc and 1453 that the game engine cant handle.
The importance of sieges went down in Nap times, but much more importantly what are these sieges among 15th century indians. There technology of course was not even on a level with 1419 bc. If you going to have a colonial game you need to able to handle widely divergent technology levels
From a scenario point of view you might want to start after the hundred years war the fall of byzantium and just possibly the reconquista, but thats got nothing to do with the game engine.
What changed between 1419 and 1453 militarily that the highly abstract battle engine of EU can't handle. In fact what happened between 1419 bc and 1453 that the game engine cant handle.
The importance of sieges went down in Nap times, but much more importantly what are these sieges among 15th century indians. There technology of course was not even on a level with 1419 bc. If you going to have a colonial game you need to able to handle widely divergent technology levels
EU3 will hopefully be a great game. And I don't have a problem with a shorter timeline.
But, I can still hope. I hope, that one day, an Advanced EU type game will be made spanning 5000b.c. to 2000a.d. That would make me happy. You would just have to have an evolving interface with the time periods. And, with the events that Paradox uses, you can easily make your way through a cultural tree to whatever peoples you'd want to be!
But, I can still hope. I hope, that one day, an Advanced EU type game will be made spanning 5000b.c. to 2000a.d. That would make me happy. You would just have to have an evolving interface with the time periods. And, with the events that Paradox uses, you can easily make your way through a cultural tree to whatever peoples you'd want to be!
Derek Pullem said:
Of course it was Derek. In an earlier post in this thread I even said it was an "immense difference". But that does not prove anything at all in the question of the the need of a shorter time span.
Mowers said:
LOL Mowers, I had expected something different from someone like you. But what you write is just another generalised statement without any value at all, unless you are the Einstein of coding whose word is a message directly from God.
Speaking of God... Now if Johan stepped down to earth and informed us that unfortunately they cannot do such an engine. Well then I would consider the matter closed.
Last edited:
Daniel A said:LOL Mowers, I had expected something different from someone like you. But what you write is just another generalised statement without any value at all, unless you are the Einstein of coding whose word is a message directly from God.
Speaking of God... Now if Johan stepped down to earth and informed us that unfortunately they cannot do such an engine. Well then I would consider the matter closed.
Well, I guess its like Smirfy said in another thread, I'll take less if it means that what I get works. If that means even only getting a 100 years I'll take it as long as it works.
Daniel A said:LOL Mowers, I had expected something different from someone like you. But what you write is just another generalised statement without any value at all, unless you are the Einstein of coding whose word is a message directly from God.
Speaking of God... Now if Johan stepped down to earth and informed us that unfortunately they cannot do such an engine. Well then I would consider the matter closed.
Well.......I doubt if he will. But after having worked with Johan and Greven on EU2, HoI, Victoria and HoI2 asa beta I can tell you that trying to get the feel of the period right is the most diffcult part of makingthe game.
And to change models from feudal to rnaissance to industrial in one game would take alot of work. And to be honest - why should you build three models for on game. No one is going to pat 100 euros for such a game so it makes more sense to build three games at 40 euros.
Just my two cents.
Derek Pullem said:
Yes of course, but that is something entirely different than claiming that the time span must be shorter because the engine cannot be made to mimic the changed conditions during a 1419-1819 time span. It is that view I have attacked by stating that there has been no evidence presented that support this view, only generalised statements saying something similar to "it can't be done".
Simple as that
Err... Paradox choosing to reduce the timespan of the game isn't enough for you?Daniel A said:Speaking of God... Now if Johan stepped down to earth and informed us that unfortunately they cannot do such an engine. Well then I would consider the matter closed.