Sticking with EU2

[unmerged(36763)]

I kinda like that rule. Any way to mod that into EUII?

I think it sounds like a good idea, you could implement it to an extent by not taking more than 4 provinces at a time. One bit of EU II I wish was different is that it is only possible to annex a 1 province country. I can understand a limit (Victoria only pemits annexation for nations of 3 provinces or less), it is a bit too much to have to fight two wars for a 2 or 3 province nation.

 

[unmerged(48100)]

You don't. First, vassalise, wait ten years and dipploannex. No second war. Forceannex gives too much badboy to even consider it.

 

[unmerged(48794)]

Since I am in the army for time being, I have not been able to play EUIII before recently. However, I see that there have been discussions about whether it is better than EUII or not. I guess this discussins were inevitable, and I was very exited when I tried my EUIII CE for the first time. And I most agree with a lot of EUII fans, I was very disappointed. I did fear that the game would not exceed my expectations, but it seems that Paradox has done the same mistake which is very easy to make. In order to really making it, making it a leading strategy game, Paradox has made the game in 3D, and added new features. I am sure that there are plenty of lovely features in the new game, but to me, making a 3D version is all wrong. If you are going to make a game as EUIII in 3D, you will have to maki it good. The graphics must be excellent, not mediocre and just used because it is 3D.
When I got tired of playing EU II, I'd switch to Medieval II for instance, where I would get lovely graphics and the possibility of testing my skills on the battlefield.

But EUII is so different, and what I wanted for EUIII was more territories to conquer( I want the whole world!), more options in creating nearer and better bonds between countries and the possibility of constructing more buildings and infrastructure. I would have been more than pleased with this. If I wanted to play a 3D startegy game, there would be loads of them on the market, but there are few 2D games, and none are better than EUII.
So the biggest mistake was to make the game in 3D, which makes the game just another one among hundreds.

This were just some of my thoughts about EUII and III. I will give EUIII another shot when I come home. I feel like I owe that to the people who have given me some much fun through EU II

 

[Dairpo]

I'm sticking to EUII for two reasons all stemming from my current status as a student. The first is that it requires a much better graphics card than I have and I can't afford the upgrade and the second is that I can't afford a new video game until some time after I graduate (2 and a half months to go ).

 

[deadmeat1471]

Strategy is about thinking, eu2 is about history of the age and thinking.
Why would any sane individual put hardcore 3d graphics in a strategy game.

Morons.

 

[deadmeat1471]

Though paradox team has my applause for Eu2, HoI 1 and Victoria REV.
Just hope someday people realise strategy doesnt need 3d rendered graphics with pixelshader 2.0, it require a simple tabletop map and thats it (like eu2, hoi and victoria).

It downgrades the pleasure of playing a paradox game, increases the game length due to the rendering of better graphics and ultimately pisses me off.

 

[unmerged(65041)]

Though paradox team has my applause for Eu2, HoI 1 and Victoria REV.
Just hope someday people realise strategy doesnt need 3d rendered graphics with pixelshader 2.0, it require a simple tabletop map and thats it (like eu2, hoi and victoria).

It downgrades the pleasure of playing a paradox game, increases the game length due to the rendering of better graphics and ultimately pisses me off.

Well if you believe the hype, developers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. That is they don't believe they can get their slice of the marketing pie unless they go 3D. They also cannot please their hardcore fans if they go 3D since it makes it look like they tacked it on for no game reason.

Whether either of those is true or not is debateable, but it seems to be the way things are going. HoMM5 is 3D, doesn't need to be. EU3... same deal. GalCiv2 same deal... Civ4 same deal...

I dunno, I don't mind the 3D necessarilly, but when they botch its implementation... well then they get reamed.

 

[unmerged(16181)]

Why would any sane individual put hardcore 3d graphics in a strategy game.

So that they can have the graphics card handle graphics tasks, leaving the motherboard resources free to handle other things, like an enhanced AI.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

So that they can have the graphics card handle graphics tasks, leaving the motherboard resources free to handle other things, like an enhanced AI.

I am not an expert in such technical matters, but it seems to me that the switch to 3D has made the game unrunnable or slow on far more computers than staying on 2D would, at least judging from general forum opinion.

And I cannot say I can see a vast improvement in the AI from Eu2 to Eu3. It handles attrition better because of a change in design but I do not think the AI itself is any smarter (certainly not compared to EP)

 

[unmerged(65041)]

So that they can have the graphics card handle graphics tasks, leaving the motherboard resources free to handle other things, like an enhanced AI.

That's what they'll tell you anyway.

However, it should be pointed out that in the time between EU2 and EU3 memory and processors have improved dramatically as well...

I don't have or play EU3 so I can't really comment on it directly, but it does seem that there are quite a few people stating that the AI is 'worse' than that in EU2. Or at least that the game is easier, which could be as much about changes to various mechanics than to improvements to the AI.

Granted paradox seems to improve their games dramatically through patches, but it always irks me when the release *needs* to be patched to provide a decent challenge. Anyway, I'm playing the waiting game for EU3 and the gfx card I'd have to get to play it anyway...

 

[unmerged(9130)]

You've gotta be kidding me? No forum access? (or no full forum access) What kind of policy is that? The forums are almost part of the game! That would be like selling a car without chairs inside.

Remember that if you don't buy Collectors Edition you won't get full forum access (as I understand it)!

Although I haven't made the order yet so please wait so they won't run out of them.

 

[EUnderhill]

That's what they'll tell you anyway.

However, it should be pointed out that in the time between EU2 and EU3 memory and processors have improved dramatically as well...

I don't have or play EU3 so I can't really comment on it directly, but it does seem that there are quite a few people stating that the AI is 'worse' than that in EU2. Or at least that the game is easier, which could be as much about changes to various mechanics than to improvements to the AI.

Granted paradox seems to improve their games dramatically through patches, but it always irks me when the release *needs* to be patched to provide a decent challenge. Anyway, I'm playing the waiting game for EU3 and the gfx card I'd have to get to play it anyway...

Most of the complaints about the AI have to do with it acting more like a player and doing what seems the "smart" thing rather than the "historical" thing and that there are no specific (or at least very limited) country AI files.

 

[EUnderhill]

You've gotta be kidding me? No forum access? (or no full forum access) What kind of policy is that? The forums are almost part of the game! That would be like selling a car without chairs inside.

There is a special forum for CE owners that gives early access to public betas and polls on potential features.

 

[unmerged(65041)]

Most of the complaints about the AI have to do with it acting more like a player and doing what seems the "smart" thing rather than the "historical" thing and that there are no specific (or at least very limited) country AI files.

Well none the less, what I wrote was that many people were saying the game was too easy. Whether due to poor AI, or game mechanics, or whatever...

I'm sure it'll get better as mods/patches come out. That's what I waiting for anyway.

 

[CatKnight]

That appears to be what I'm seeing from the AARs. I remember even EU2's basic AI kicked my sorry butt the first time or two I played it. EP's AI pwns me pretty much at whim.

People are dominating their area in their first runs with EU3.

IDLF says the AI's much harder to mod now. Hm.

Still, it's a little early to say for sure.

 

[Languish]

I'm waiting for it to be ported to the Mac (might be waiting a while though )... but i've been pleased with the way it is not like EU2 with an AI and Gameplay more akin to EU1 than its immediate predecessor.

 

[unmerged(9130)]

So basically its all about finding the perfect balance between an AI thats smart enough to be able to kick your behind, but controlled enough to stay more or less historical... That was EU2's problem aswell wasnt it? In that case i'd say, give it time...
I love the reminders in EU3 btw, especially the revolt reminder.

Offtopic: Its snowing here! A big yey!

 

[CatKnight]

Congrats on the snow!

I have little hope of EU3 becoming at all historical. That would require a deterministic outlook, which EU3 not only avoided in the design process, but appears to be problematic for mods. Of course, one can certainly hope.

I'm not worried (for EU3) about exactly repeating history. The Ottos don't NEED to be trashing the Balkans every single time. Poland and Lithuania don't need to (and apparently won't) merge.

However, I'd like to see a similar situation develop. I'm perfectly happy with an AI being as...opportunistic...as most players. That's the best way to challenge them/us. On the other hand, I want to see Europe develop...similarly.

IE, by say...1700, I'd like to see four or five major colonizing powers in a dogfight for control of the Americas, Africa and parts of India. Not two. Not thirteen. (EU1, I'm sorry to say) A handful of the more powerful western states.

I'd like to see some sort of balance of power setup, where the AIs are making sure no one, including you, are getting too big for their own good.

I'd LOVE to see warfare slowly change, from the grunting slugfest Europe is just starting to abandon in 1453, to the maneuvering wars of Frederick the Great up to Napoleon.

For EU2 I want more determinism because that's the only way to assure a reasonably stable outcome. The Ottos MUST do well, or Austria WILL eat half of Germany - that kind of thing. For EU3 the dynamism suggests we have some room to maneuver here...but even if the players change, I'd like to see similarities to what really happened.

And right now the AI's really too easy. A new player posted his own map in coz's Brandenburg AAR. First game. Brandenburg. He owns Germany. That isn't right.

 

[Kelvin]

From what I've seen in EU3 AARs, the game is plain UGLY compared to EUII

Yes, it offers some good things, but destroying the unique "feel&taste" of its predecessor is just too much for me.

If I want a 3D strategy I have a whole market dedicated to that particular niche to pick from :wacko:

 

[unmerged(9130)]

The problem with AI acting as players is that, like a human player, it will want to have a big and strong empire (unless your goals are different). You cannot expect a human player NOT to conquer a province that can easily be taken, even if that makes the game historically incorrect. And if the AI has to be more like a human, it will respond in the same way. So thats why i think its impossible to have a 'human like, challenging but historically correct AI'.
If id have to choose, id still go for a challenging AI with lots of events to compensate for its unhistorical behaviour. Which is why i favor EU2 (AGCEEP or EP) over EU3.