Some small concerns

[unmerged(252)]

EU is a great game, but:

1. I went to war with Milan when I had the highest land tech of any major country in the game, and Milan had muskets and I didn't. They are one province and I am France (and then some). The way the tech costs more for large countries needs to be tweeked. I understand that there needs to be a slight penalty for size or the advantages of large countries over small countries in the area of tech would become unrealistic, but the fact remains that the major countries did have better tech and methods... the point is that maybe I shouldn't be 20 levels ahead of Milan, but Milan certainly shouldn't be ahead of me! I should still, despite my large size, have a fairly significant tech advantage over one province countries.

2. The whole combat system seems screwed up to me. I often fight smaller armies with less tech than myself and lose. I kinda see things like this as little cheats for the computer since they can't compete with the intelligence of a person, but they are still a bit annoying.

3. This was a concern I had before the game and I'm afraid my worst fears have been realized. The attrition is WAY too much in this game. I can't be in a war for more than a few months without having my entire army except cannons wiped out by attrition. Historical or not (and I seriously doubt this level of attrition was possible--it would have been almost impossible to fight a war), this just isn't fun.

4. Playing France, I have had an unusually small number of historical land leaders, and thus my ground forces have suffered in battle. Isn't France a great land power? Where are the leaders?

5. The bad boy thing is a pretty good idea but I think it is a bit extreme the way it is currently implemented. People like to have wars, that's what makes the game fun. Don't make winning a war so damaging diplomatically that it isn't even worth it anymore and the only thing to do is build manufactories and colonize.


There were other things in my mind, but I am too tired from playing EU too much to remember them.

Disclaimer: I love EU, I play it constantly. I think it's the best strategy game ever made. Please don't flame me for raising a couple concerns.

 

[hjarg]

1. Research costs don't include only pure research, but also costs of equipping/modernizing/training armies. So is is normal that smaller nations with smaller armies and less logistical troubles get their armies modernized more quickly.
2. Small armies defeating big ones: annoying, yes, but actually historically correct.
3. Try using smaller armies: lots of cannons and some infantary to support them. And have a field army nearby. And how do you hope to siege a city without losing a single soldier? Especially in the middle of nowhere is Russia and in winter. I actually like attricion. It makes you plan harder. And there is other option as well: assault. Sometimes you can keep your losses smaller when you assault.
4. There is quite a lot of them actually. A bit too much when you're not playing as France and a bit too little when you are playing as France. Depends on the point of view
5. Yes, i know what you mean. Played as France, annexed Lorraine and Aztecs, some wars against England and Spain (gained 4 provinces) and a couple of diplomatic annexations: badboy over 40, next is Poland (28) and all other nations have negative. Guess whom everyone attacks. Especially annoying are small German states.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Vurbil
2. The whole combat system seems screwed up to me. I often fight smaller armies with less tech than myself and lose. I kinda see things like this as little cheats for the computer since they can't compete with the intelligence of a person, but they are still a bit annoying.

Small human led armies also beat large AI armies. Battle is impossible to predict, if you take even a casual glance at history you will notice that size is not an important factor. I agree it can be annoying, but that's the cost of war.

3. This was a concern I had before the game and I'm afraid my worst fears have been realized. The attrition is WAY too much in this game. I can't be in a war for more than a few months without having my entire army except cannons wiped out by attrition. Historical or not (and I seriously doubt this level of attrition was possible--it would have been almost impossible to fight a war), this just isn't fun.

You have just explained one of the reasons that European borders didn't change too much during the 300 years of the game's timespan. War is almost impossible, unless you prepare for the huge losses of attrition. And yes, again, this is historicaly correct. Even in 1944 the Chindits in Burma lost 10 men to diasese to every 1 lost in battle. Napoleon left 480,000 behind in Russia, attrition in medieval and rennaisance war was staggering. Battle losses were often a fraction of the losses just to march to meet the enemy.

4. Playing France, I have had an unusually small number of historical land leaders, and thus my ground forces have suffered in battle. Isn't France a great land power? Where are the leaders?

You get a few very good ones in the mid 17th century, and loads in the 18th century. In fact France gets more leaders than you will be able to assign to armies.

5. The bad boy thing is a pretty good idea but I think it is a bit extreme the way it is currently implemented. People like to have wars, that's what makes the game fun. Don't make winning a war so damaging diplomatically that it isn't even worth it anymore and the only thing to do is build manufactories and colonize.

Again, the history of the period influences the game. It is possible to expand militarily if you go slow, and bribe as many other nations as possible. If you really want a game of conquest, edit the save file and take 20 or 30 off your badboy score, and maybe some of the AI nations. Then reload the game and you will all expand without consequences.

EU is a very different kind of game, and all the things you want to do are possible with planning and patience. You can't move large armies around together, instead split them up and combine when you need battle. Don't put cavalry in siege forces unless you're worried that you may be attacked. Also, most wars went 'on hold' during winter, don't march large armies through provinces with snow unless you really have to.

If you want to expand, go a little slow. You don't need to conquer western Europe in 50 years. Use the money from colonies and manufacturies to pay off your allies, and the neutrals. By the time Europe turns on you, your empire will be strong enough to see them off.

 

[unmerged(548)]

but Milan certainly shouldn't be ahead of me! I should still, despite my large size, have a fairly significant tech advantage over one province countries.

Is this just your personal opinion based on no facts at all, or have you actually found a history book dealing with the timeperiod that states this ...

The bad boy thing is a pretty good idea but I think it is a bit extreme the way it is currently implemented. People like to have wars, that's what makes the game fun. Don't make winning a war so damaging diplomatically that it isn't even worth it anymore and the only thing to do is build manufactories and colonize.

Obviously your not appreciating the Historical accuracy of the game.

My suggestion for you is to completly forget about playing the historical campaigns and instead concentrate on the Fantasy and/or any of the really short war scenarios.

That's probably the best way for you to get your 'fun' from this game. Other then that I can only recomend any of more then a dussen games that might suit you better in the Civ and C&C families.

 

[unmerged(252)]

Originally posted by sean9898

Small human led armies also beat large AI armies. Battle is impossible to predict, if you take even a casual glance at history you will notice that size is not an important factor. I agree it can be annoying, but that's the cost of war.


You have just explained one of the reasons that European borders didn't change too much during the 300 years of the game's timespan. War is almost impossible, unless you prepare for the huge losses of attrition. And yes, again, this is historicaly correct. Even in 1944 the Chindits in Burma lost 10 men to diasese to every 1 lost in battle. Napoleon left 480,000 behind in Russia, attrition in medieval and rennaisance war was staggering. Battle losses were often a fraction of the losses just to march to meet the enemy.


You get a few very good ones in the mid 17th century, and loads in the 18th century. In fact France gets more leaders than you will be able to assign to armies.


Again, the history of the period influences the game. It is possible to expand militarily if you go slow, and bribe as many other nations as possible. If you really want a game of conquest, edit the save file and take 20 or 30 off your badboy score, and maybe some of the AI nations. Then reload the game and you will all expand without consequences.

EU is a very different kind of game, and all the things you want to do are possible with planning and patience. You can't move large armies around together, instead split them up and combine when you need battle. Don't put cavalry in siege forces unless you're worried that you may be attacked. Also, most wars went 'on hold' during winter, don't march large armies through provinces with snow unless you really have to.

If you want to expand, go a little slow. You don't need to conquer western Europe in 50 years. Use the money from colonies and manufacturies to pay off your allies, and the neutrals. By the time Europe turns on you, your empire will be strong enough to see them off.

I'm afraid I will have to disagree. I disagree on two assumptions you make. One, that everything in EU is historical and perfectly balanced. The former is not true by admission of the game makers themselves in the manual that comes with the game; the latter is disproven by the numerous and ongoing patches released by Paradox. And two, that being historically accurate is the sole criterion for a game feature. This is widely rejected and again, most notably, is rejected by the game makers themselves in the manual they wrote. They make the point in that manual that if a game were totally historically accurate it wouldn't be a game at all but rather a history book.

On the issue of small armies being beaten by larger and more advanced armies with better leaders: You are mistaken that it goes both ways. It almost always favors the computer in my experience. You are further mistaken that it is historically accurate. That it could and did happen is accurate, but my entire point was that it happens far too frequently under far too loopsided conditions. In this it is inaccurate. And finally, you are mistaken that because it may be (in your opinion, which is wrong) historically accurate it is good to have it in the game. If the outcomes of battles were entirely random and not in any way dependent upon the relative sizes of the armies AND the relative techs of the armies AND the relative abilities of the commanders, then playing the game would be rendered moot.

On the issue of attrition: You are mistaken that attrition always occured to the degree it occurs in EU. Your own examples actually tend to disprove your argument. You mentioned Cambodia and the Russian winter--two very extreme circumstances, hardly comparable to losing your whole army from walking across your own country. However, it is on the history vs. gameplay issue that you are mostly mistaken. Again, if most of an army if not all of it is annihilated before a battle even takes place, playing the game is rendered moot.

On the issue of the ground leaders of France: You are mistaken. For many years I had no land leader at all, not a single one. Right now I have 2.

On the issue of badboy: You are mistaken. On this issue I am reluctant to argue because almost everyone agrees with me. Badboy was a great idea which I myself suggested in one form or another (you will remember that I thought someone's French Empire was excessive). However, in its current implementation it is flawed. It is just too punitive and too permanent.

I hope you are not offended. I mean no offense, it is just that you are mistaken in your opinions.

 

[unmerged(252)]

Originally posted by Huszics
but Milan certainly shouldn't be ahead of me! I should still, despite my large size, have a fairly significant tech advantage over one province countries.

Is this just your personal opinion based on no facts at all, or have you actually found a history book dealing with the timeperiod that states this ...

The bad boy thing is a pretty good idea but I think it is a bit extreme the way it is currently implemented. People like to have wars, that's what makes the game fun. Don't make winning a war so damaging diplomatically that it isn't even worth it anymore and the only thing to do is build manufactories and colonize.

Obviously your not appreciating the Historical accuracy of the game.

My suggestion for you is to completly forget about playing the historical campaigns and instead concentrate on the Fantasy and/or any of the really short war scenarios.

That's probably the best way for you to get your 'fun' from this game. Other then that I can only recomend any of more then a dussen games that might suit you better in the Civ and C&C families.

Now there is a guy that can handle someone disagreeing with him.

 

[Johan]

First of all, welcome back to the forums Vurbil

Originally posted by Vurbil

EU is a great game, but:
1. I went to war with Milan when I had the highest land tech of any major country in the game, and Milan had muskets and I didn't. They are one province and I am France (and then some). The way the tech costs more for large countries needs to be tweeked. I understand that there needs to be a slight penalty for size or the advantages of large countries over small countries in the area of tech would become unrealistic, but the fact remains that the major countries did have better tech and methods... the point is that maybe I shouldn't be 20 levels ahead of Milan, but Milan certainly shouldn't be ahead of me! I should still, despite my large size, have a fairly significant tech advantage over one province countries.


This is because the development of new technology is just not the research, but also the manufacturing and deployment of new technology.

The idea is that if Milan spends enough resources on technological development then they should be not too far behind of France, if France does the same.

However, I agree with you that it is not perfect as it is now, and there are some minor tweaks and bugfixes in 1.08 which will balance this better.

2. The whole combat system seems screwed up to me. I often fight smaller armies with less tech than myself and lose. I kinda see things like this as little cheats for the computer since they can't compete with the intelligence of a person, but they are still a bit annoying.


Actually the combat is fair to both sides. There are a lot of not so obvious modifiers to combat, such as terrain, morale, leader stats, etc.. ie attacking someone defending in mountain with a lot of infantry is not a very good idea, while a cavalry advantage on plains makes wonders.

3. This was a concern I had before the game and I'm afraid my worst fears have been realized. The attrition is WAY too much in this game. I can't be in a war for more than a few months without having my entire army except cannons wiped out by attrition. Historical or not (and I seriously doubt this level of attrition was possible--it would have been almost impossible to fight a war), this just isn't fun.


I don't agree with you if its historical or not (We've had a lot of long discussions on the forums about that ), BUT.. if you say it's not fun, then thats your opinion which you are perfectly entitled to have.

4. Playing France, I have had an unusually small number of historical land leaders, and thus my ground forces have suffered in battle. Isn't France a great land power? Where are the leaders?


France gets a lot of them, however, our leader management is awkward at best, so they might have ended up in the same army.

5. The bad boy thing is a pretty good idea but I think it is a bit extreme the way it is currently implemented. People like to have wars, that's what makes the game fun. Don't make winning a war so damaging diplomatically that it isn't even worth it anymore and the only thing to do is build manufactories and colonize.


We are tweaking it in 1.08, and it makes repeated wars damaging diplomatically.

There were other things in my mind, but I am too tired from playing EU too much to remember them.

Disclaimer: I love EU, I play it constantly. I think it's the best strategy game ever made. Please don't flame me for raising a couple concerns.

Thanks for your opinion

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Vurbil
On the issue of attrition: You are mistaken that attrition always occured to the degree it occurs in EU. However, it is on the history vs. gameplay issue that you are mostly mistaken. Again, if most of an army if not all of it is annihilated before a battle even takes place, playing the game is rendered moot.

Maybe you should check the attrition levels of provinces more carefully before you move troops into them. It's possible to lose very few troops to attrition if you take care not to move armies into provinces that can't support them. Of course, this makes wars more difficult, but then that's very realistic, since armies in this period couldn't just go marching off anywhere they pleased without a thought as to supply.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Vurbil
EU is a great game, but:

1. I went to war with Milan when I had the highest land tech of any major country in the game, and Milan had muskets and I didn't. They are one province and I am France (and then some
2. The whole combat system seems screwed up to me. I often fight smaller armies with less tech than myself and lose. I kinda see things like this as little cheats for the computer since they can't compete with the intelligence of a person, but they are still a bit annoying.
3. This was a concern I had before the game and I'm afraid my worst fears have been realized. The attrition is WAY too much in this game. 4. Playing France, I have had an unusually small number of historical land leaders, and thus my ground forces have suffered in battle. Isn't France a great land power? Where are the leaders?
5. The bad boy thing is a pretty good idea but I think it is a bit extreme the way it is currently implemented.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Vurbil
EU is a great game, but:

1. I went to war with Milan when I had the highest land tech of any major country in the game, and Milan had muskets and I didn't. They are one province and I am France (and then some
2. The whole combat system seems screwed up to me. I often fight smaller armies with less tech than myself and lose. I kinda see things like this as little cheats for the computer since they can't compete with the intelligence of a person, but they are still a bit annoying.
3. This was a concern I had before the game and I'm afraid my worst fears have been realized. The attrition is WAY too much in this game.
4. Playing France, I have had an unusually small number of historical land leaders, and thus my ground forces have suffered in battle. Isn't France a great land power? Where are the leaders?
5. The bad boy thing is a pretty good idea but I think it is a bit extreme the way it is currently implemented.

To your points:
1. Prussia was a higher tek level than it's foes in the 1700's despite being smaller. The Italian armies of (and this is outside the realm of the game but instructive) 1400's were more advanced than the 'great' powers. Small doesn't mean backwards and they can in fact have advantages.
2. Combat is always dicey. I think the peasant revolts are a bit overpowered but combat between armies seems within the realm of reason. You can't run a good test and see if 7 out of 10 times your better leader and higher tech army beats the bad guys. Recall, even as good a general as Frederick the Great ost (and lost badly) in several battles to really poor foes (no one will confuse the Russian and Austria marshall of the Sevn Years War with brilliant leaders).
3.Attrition is a bitch but recall attrition includes illness and desertion which were major issues. Attrition declines as time goes on but it is a brutal thing. Keep in mind that armies of this era were not huge. Attrition forces you into the realm of keeping 30-40K armies and not 80k armies. The AI doesn't know this and really badly manages attrition.
4.Don't know about France.
5. Bad boy needs some fixes no doubt.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Hey Vurbil, disagreement is healthy

French Leaders
I've played France, I know what leaders arrive, if you check the save game file you will see a long list of them. There really are too many. Some years you get 5 or 6.

Small armies
I play the game with small armies, particularly in the beginning and am able to win battles against larger forces. Cavalry appears very important, if you are outnumbered in cavalry then you need to be much bigger than the opposition to win.

Attrition
I don't know what you are basing your arguement on, but attrition really was this bad.

badboy
Change the value in the save file to suit your taste, or find a way to expand slower. It's a little over aggressive now but not impossible to deal with.

 

[grumbold]

It's been said before but I shall echo it anyway

Attrition varies from tiny to massive depending on the terrain. A rich lowland province can have a small maximum attrition rate right next door to a mountainous province in the grip of winter where it can rise as high as 30% per month. If you look carefully at the maximum size of each province and the maximum attrition modifier it is possible to judge attrition losses quite carefully. Just try not to fight large battles in a hazardous province belonging to someone else. Once your military tech rises higher the attrition rate becomes negligible in many provinces.

One thing I am a little doubtful about is why attrition affects the whole army rather than just the excess troops above the province limit. March a 50k army into a 40k limit province or a 10k limit province and a 10% attrition rate will take 5k off both times. I would expect the attrition rate to affect only the excess troops and increase in severity the higher above the province limit you went. The AI stacks of 120k+ need fixing first otherwise they would suffer even more than they do already. Then teach an AI ally not to march its 20k army in to 'assist' a siege where you are carefully maintaining a force that just fits in the 12k supply limit

 

[unmerged(1051)]

I find the Badboy factor quite realistic - though I won't go into how balanced it is since I hear it's being adjusted in the next patch.
There are ways to avoid being labelled a Bad Boy - and I believe it has a lot to do with how you behave. Fine, the fun of the game may for many people be to expand and expand through wars and more wars.... and well, can you expect anything else from the other nations then? Try to accept the first peace offers you receive when at war instead of declining the offer to try to get a better deal later. Try to not be the aggressor all that often - there are other ways to win the game

Just my two cents - of course it's all about how each person likes to play, you just have to accept the game's premises.

RoB

 

[unmerged(952)]

Originally posted by Huszics


Obviously your not appreciating the Historical accuracy of the game.

My suggestion for you is to completly forget about playing the historical campaigns and instead concentrate on the Fantasy and/or any of the really short war scenarios.

That's probably the best way for you to get your 'fun' from this game. Other then that I can only recomend any of more then a dussen games that might suit you better in the Civ and C&C families.

I'm not a moderator. I'm just some chump that plays EU. But for some reason I feel the need to sell EU to the public. Maybe it's because I want as many people as possible to buy this game so that Paradox makes money & keeps up the good work that allows me to have so much fun. So it seems to me that it is better that members of the EU community should encourage others to enjoy the game in whatever fashion floats their boat, and maybe communicate constructively with them toward the common goal of providing the best EU possible.

Therefore I would request that moderators not criticize posters for wanting something in EU that the moderator doesn't want, or try to make people feel inferior because they aren't EU purists.

 

[unmerged(252)]

Two more points. This may be entirely intentional, so I'm reporting it just in case it's not. I have seen provinces controlled by rebels for a decade and never declare independence. I'm not sure if only historical countries can declare independence but I got the impression from the manual that any province in rebellion for a long time would do it.

And the other point is some further thoughts on badboy. For one, badboy gives an even larger advantage to France, Spain, England, and Portugal. These four can easily become the most powerful nation in the game without starting a single war, simply by colonization and economic development. The eastern nations, like Austria (although they play a great diplomatic game and therefore may be the exception), Turkey, Russia, and Poland need to expand by war to compete. The last two get hurt especially, and specifically Russia. 'But that's historical' you say. Well, maybe and maybe not. Did France or Spain, wrapped up in the politics of western Europe and busy creating colonial empires really care that some backwater called Russia was annexing khanates? It seems like playing Russia would be disproportionately hard now since their very existence depends on expansion by war.

So my point is, in some cases badboy is accurate historically and sometimes it's not. Right now the implementation is too generalized (add that to too punitive and too permanent). It's not historical when it is preventing the historical rise of Russia, is it? And historical or not, it raises some pretty big gameplay problems in terms of which countries are fun to play and which not. If I'm playing England or France, fine. I can certainly entertain myself with diplomatic manipulation and colonization. But if I'm Poland I'm gonna do a whole lot of watching the time run.

P.S. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me, not insult me. Thank you.

 

[unmerged(1783)]

Originally posted by glen
Therefore I would request that moderators not criticize posters for wanting something in EU that the moderator doesn't want, or try to make people feel inferior because they aren't EU purists.

If you read his post, though, he did have a constructive suggestion: People who don't want historical accuracy can play the Fantasia scenario instead of the Grand Campaign. Presumably the Fantasia scenario is there for exactly that purpose, and presumably non-historical types will make other fantasy scenarios as time goes on, and there will be plenty of room for both kinds of players without having to re-tailor the GC or the game mechanics to satisfy the fantasy players (and of course nobody would suggest re-tailoring the fantasy scenarios to satisfy the historical players).

 

[unmerged(1531)]

1. Regarding attrition

Regarding the high attrition values, I think they are historical, especially when you have a 'small' army, in the 20-30k range. It is however deadly to 100k armies, as they exceed the max supply limit nearly everywhere. This is a good thing, as it encourages the player to have armies of an historical size. He can play like the AI, have large armies, but they will vanish quickly anyway... Later in the game, land tech reduces the attrition, so it is easier to have larger armies. In fact, I would favor having a harsher attrition past a certain size, and an AI that takes it better into account. That would suppress those 150k armies raised by Lorraine in 1504. (Of course, I am all for a max size for the armies of countries, something easy to implement like n time the manpower base, but it may be too much to have in a patch. There are such limits in the BG.)

2. Regarding technology

It has been told that the tech. investments are not only linked to research but to upgrade costs of the army. I would advise to explain it more clearly : it is in no way linked to research but to upgrade costs. After all, most tech levels are not invention per se, but more the widespread use of a small improvement. Field Artillery (tech 3) for example has been known in Western Europe since the 14th century. The matchlock can't be really protected for a long time : once you've acquired one copy, it is not difficult to understand it. So the cost to get this tech is the cost to equip everyone with the next-generation gun. Caracole is a tactic. Cost to research: zero, one you've witnessed it. The cost lie only in training the horsemen to do it. It is far easier to do if you have 3,000 horsemen instead of 30,000.

However, I would favor a 'neighbour bonus' greater if a country leads by a wide margin, at least in the same tech group. But it may discourage the player to invest in it at all.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Vurbil
Two more points. This may be entirely intentional, so I'm reporting it just in case it's not. I have seen provinces controlled by rebels for a decade and never declare independence. I'm not sure if only historical countries can declare independence but I got the impression from the manual that any province in rebellion for a long time would do it.

And the other point is some further thoughts on badboy. For one, badboy gives an even larger advantage to France, Spain, England, and Portugal. These four can easily become the most powerful nation in the game without starting a single war, simply by colonization and economic development. The eastern nations, like Austria (although they play a great diplomatic game and therefore may be the exception), Turkey, Russia, and Poland need to expand by war to compete. The last two get hurt especially, and specifically Russia. 'But that's historical' you say. Well, maybe and maybe not. Did France or Spain, wrapped up in the politics of western Europe and busy creating colonial empires really care that some backwater called Russia was annexing khanates? It seems like playing Russia would be disproportionately hard now since their very existence depends on expansion by war.

So my point is, in some cases badboy is accurate historically and sometimes it's not. Right now the implementation is too generalized (add that to too punitive and too permanent). It's not historical when it is preventing the historical rise of Russia, is it? And historical or not, it raises some pretty big gameplay problems in terms of which countries are fun to play and which not. If I'm playing England or France, fine. I can certainly entertain myself with diplomatic manipulation and colonization. But if I'm Poland I'm gonna do a whole lot of watching the time run.

Thank you.

1. I've seen many provinces rebel and not go independent. One pesky one was a Turkish province I gained as the Aurstians that was not connected to my empire. It rebelled and I figured- fine, go away. I casn't defend you and I can use a badboy drop. The rebls took the provinces but after 25 years it is still just a province of mine under rebl control.

2. I stand by my suggestion that non-christian and non-european conquests do not count as bad boy- or at least assign a value to each province. Kazan might be a 1 while Bavaria is a 6 for example. That makes Turkish and Russian expansion less diplomatically devestating for them while more accuractely reflecting the concerns of the 'balance of power'.

 

[unmerged(543)]

Well this is an interesting thread. I would like to point out one thing though, and that is that although the game states that it is not _historically_ a perfect simulation it does strive for realism. That realism is what we dedicated EU-tgamers look for, and it is the reason for this spirited forum, that i love because of its impact on the game through the programmers interest in it. So: don't confuse 'historically' with 'realistic'. What most people are looking for when they want changes is either more realism or a more enjoyable game. The balance between realism and playability has been a major problem in game design since the birth of strategic games. i think Paradox is doing a great job and dynamically improving the game regarding to the voiced opinions here at the forum.
Time for a beer folks..

 

[unmerged(548)]

Therefore I would request that moderators not criticize posters for wanting something in EU that the moderator doesn't want, or try to make people feel inferior because they aren't EU purists.

What !??
Did you read what I wrote before you responded with this ?

My entire post is about pointing out that there are different scenarios which are more or less 'hindered' in gameplay to serve different peoples need concerning easyness to play vs historical accuracy.

Or do you think all those other scenarios does not deserve to be played by anyone at all, beeing just useless junk of code ?

You think it's bad advice to point someone not likeing the 'historical accuracy', 300 year General Campaign towards some of the other 'lighter' scenarios instead ?!?

If that is your viewpoint, YOU are in fact the one responsible of NOT following the principle of (in your own words) 'the EU community should encourage others to enjoy the game in whatever fashion floats their boat,'

And yes, I'm sort of an EU purist (having played the BG etc) but I'm not suggesting that Fantazy or any other scenario should be changed or even removed 'becourse they aren't purist enough'. I'm actually a bit anoyed about you're basicly claiming I am. =(
I do however also oppose the reverse changes beeing introduced in the GC, and I will continue to do so whatever you think about me doing so.

To sum it up, the game can already service a lot of needs WITHOUT watering down the play experience for ANY ONE group of followers towards the benefit of another. There is no automatic polarity between them!

If you think I'm in the wrong, so be it, your entiteld to having your own opinion.
However don't place words/meanings in my mouth that that does not stand for my opinion, please.