-
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.
When a human plays as Russia it's fine, when the AI plays as Russia it's pitiful. Just like England.
Suggestions
I know its supposed to be based on the board game but... here are my thoughts....
You have a list of royal family memebers so you cant have ininite royal marriages
Include the three days jane grey ruled england...
might be cheesy but what about better inhanced movies like during dipomacy (Show the marriage cermony...or the diplomats negotiating....or even sending the head of an ambassador as a declaration of war) that and if i cant control the battles a better detailed battle movie.
Have the king be able to marry personally the king or queen of another realm.
Papal orders telling the catholics nations to perform certain task
Ability to get a full hands on city building. THe ability to improve roads, agriculture, build cites from the ground up...place monuments...erect statues commeorating victories...build grand churches of different dsigns....etc....
I know its supposed to be based on the board game but... here are my thoughts....
You have a list of royal family memebers so you cant have ininite royal marriages
Include the three days jane grey ruled england...
might be cheesy but what about better inhanced movies like during dipomacy (Show the marriage cermony...or the diplomats negotiating....or even sending the head of an ambassador as a declaration of war) that and if i cant control the battles a better detailed battle movie.
Have the king be able to marry personally the king or queen of another realm.
Papal orders telling the catholics nations to perform certain task
Ability to get a full hands on city building. THe ability to improve roads, agriculture, build cites from the ground up...place monuments...erect statues commeorating victories...build grand churches of different dsigns....etc....
EU2 should cover from 1000 A.C. to 1815 A.C.
It needs to have some triggers that are used to form the countries as we know it now.
I think it would be cool for the Cruzades to be contextualized in the game engine.
It needs to have some triggers that are used to form the countries as we know it now.
I think it would be cool for the Cruzades to be contextualized in the game engine.
EUII
From what little I have seen of the game I think it perfectly feasible to extend the EU timeframe to encompass the industrial revolution/nation-building/democratization/decolonization phase of World History. In my (in this case professional academic), opinion the model used to simulate the Reformation can be used to simulate the National and Industral Revolution simply changing the labels. Historically the sectarian religious issues were replaced as sources of conflict by class and nation during the 19th Century. The extension is possible because EU, unlik the Civs, is a faithful reflection of history. Stability is stability, and any political advance of the 19th/20th Century is basically a stability advance. (There are, I might add, excellent historically grounded sociological models that can be adapted for a EU II in this respect).
At the game's level of abstraction new ideological trends of the 19th and 20th Century can be accomodated within the religion and diplomacy modules. Nationalism is in funcitonal terms a religion. Setting oneself up as champion of a 'nation' is a diplomatic endeavour. Democray and industrial revolution can be accomodated by allowing more upgrades in the city screen.
The historical baseline can probably be pushed back to the 13th Century without any major problems. In sociostructural terms nothing much changes within European agroliterate civilization betwween AD 1200 and AD 1800. The structural (economic, democraphic, cultural etc) basis did not change that much (economic growth was steady at 3 pct over the period as a whole and technological and organizational innovation was incremental).
The problem of extending the game back beyond 1200 AD is that some way must be found to ensure that empires actually break down. For game purposes 'feudalization' might be the spanner in the imperial works. even if taht woudl be a rather unhistorical mechanism. But otherwise the Holy Roman and Eastern Roman Emperors would divide those parts of the world not occupied by the oriental empires.
But EU is an incredibly good game that has cost me 12 hours of sleep during the 48 hopurs that has elapsed since I bought it.
I'm playing Denmark/Norway and won'rest until I've become Dominus Maris Baltici.
From what little I have seen of the game I think it perfectly feasible to extend the EU timeframe to encompass the industrial revolution/nation-building/democratization/decolonization phase of World History. In my (in this case professional academic), opinion the model used to simulate the Reformation can be used to simulate the National and Industral Revolution simply changing the labels. Historically the sectarian religious issues were replaced as sources of conflict by class and nation during the 19th Century. The extension is possible because EU, unlik the Civs, is a faithful reflection of history. Stability is stability, and any political advance of the 19th/20th Century is basically a stability advance. (There are, I might add, excellent historically grounded sociological models that can be adapted for a EU II in this respect).
At the game's level of abstraction new ideological trends of the 19th and 20th Century can be accomodated within the religion and diplomacy modules. Nationalism is in funcitonal terms a religion. Setting oneself up as champion of a 'nation' is a diplomatic endeavour. Democray and industrial revolution can be accomodated by allowing more upgrades in the city screen.
The historical baseline can probably be pushed back to the 13th Century without any major problems. In sociostructural terms nothing much changes within European agroliterate civilization betwween AD 1200 and AD 1800. The structural (economic, democraphic, cultural etc) basis did not change that much (economic growth was steady at 3 pct over the period as a whole and technological and organizational innovation was incremental).
The problem of extending the game back beyond 1200 AD is that some way must be found to ensure that empires actually break down. For game purposes 'feudalization' might be the spanner in the imperial works. even if taht woudl be a rather unhistorical mechanism. But otherwise the Holy Roman and Eastern Roman Emperors would divide those parts of the world not occupied by the oriental empires.
But EU is an incredibly good game that has cost me 12 hours of sleep during the 48 hopurs that has elapsed since I bought it.
I'm playing Denmark/Norway and won'rest until I've become Dominus Maris Baltici.
A Real Killer EU2
As a long (as in really, really long) time computer strategy gamer, there is one thing that would really tease my appetite:
Same darn little improved EU
and
Battle mode as in EOA's Shogun: Total War
I'd go nuts for that one. Already when shogun appeared I imagined shredding catholics at Breitenfelt or a last hurrah at Poltava.
The shogun engine already included cavalry, pikemen and muskets, so small upgrades
(cannons like "the Hog" with >200 pound cannonballs) would be sufficient.
In the age concerned, armies were lead from the front (except for Blücher), so will you please, please just think about it?
The STW platform stability wouldn't hurt, either.
Of course the multiplayer game would maybe suffer (who wants to wait for two jugheads fighting it out on the steppes of Russia) but that's a challenge for the developer.
Anyway, a king couldn't concentrate on several things at once. When you are fighting in Vienna, you have absolutely no clue what is going on back home in Moscow.
Just had a brilliant idea!
What if several players could team up and play as different commanders for the same country. With real skill/morale/fame/honor improvements/losses resulting from the battles.
ARRGGGHHH
Already playing it in my mind....
Now I know what has been missing from my life until now. Or, more exactly, until that game emerges.
ps. field fortifications would need to be included, though
As a long (as in really, really long) time computer strategy gamer, there is one thing that would really tease my appetite:
Same darn little improved EU
and
Battle mode as in EOA's Shogun: Total War
I'd go nuts for that one. Already when shogun appeared I imagined shredding catholics at Breitenfelt or a last hurrah at Poltava.
The shogun engine already included cavalry, pikemen and muskets, so small upgrades
(cannons like "the Hog" with >200 pound cannonballs) would be sufficient. In the age concerned, armies were lead from the front (except for Blücher
), so will you please, please just think about it?The STW platform stability wouldn't hurt, either.
Of course the multiplayer game would maybe suffer (who wants to wait for two jugheads fighting it out on the steppes of Russia) but that's a challenge for the developer.Anyway, a king couldn't concentrate on several things at once. When you are fighting in Vienna, you have absolutely no clue what is going on back home in Moscow.
Just had a brilliant idea!What if several players could team up and play as different commanders for the same country. With real skill/morale/fame/honor improvements/losses resulting from the battles.
ARRGGGHHH
Already playing it in my mind....
Now I know what has been missing from my life until now. Or, more exactly, until that game emerges.
ps. field fortifications would need to be included, though
I disagree. One of the things I love about EU is that you can't influence battle outcomes. Games like Shogun are inferior, I think, because eventually you become too good at the battles (3 or 4 units beating up 10 or so) and the game can only compensate with numbers.
In EU, on the other hand, if you've no decent commanders, you fight badly. Great idea!!!
I'd like to see more made of religion in EU2. Personally I'd like also for EU2 to be earlier, not later. Napoleonic era's been done to death, but think about a crusades-era type scenario? OK, so colonisation goes out of the window and the theatre is reduced to Eurasia, but that just means more + smaller provinces.
In EU, on the other hand, if you've no decent commanders, you fight badly. Great idea!!!
I'd like to see more made of religion in EU2. Personally I'd like also for EU2 to be earlier, not later. Napoleonic era's been done to death, but think about a crusades-era type scenario? OK, so colonisation goes out of the window and the theatre is reduced to Eurasia, but that just means more + smaller provinces.
u have rested from the game to type in this forum so u could be breaking your promise there you know...but good luck and long live the norwegians.
Paradox folks,
Thanks for this site and the game and the dedication you have shown to both. It is DEFINITELY one of the reasons the game is better than a lot of others, and possibly one of the reasons your poster quality-base is a cut above.
I would opine that EU2 be committed to the Dark-Middle age period for the simply myriad dynastic and regional interests represented, and the relevance to the same player base that it has already been shown is dedicated to the curent game.
(The poll was already closed!).
Thanks for this site and the game and the dedication you have shown to both. It is DEFINITELY one of the reasons the game is better than a lot of others, and possibly one of the reasons your poster quality-base is a cut above.
I would opine that EU2 be committed to the Dark-Middle age period for the simply myriad dynastic and regional interests represented, and the relevance to the same player base that it has already been shown is dedicated to the curent game.
(The poll was already closed!).
how about adding id change my DNA to the poll?
Just a thought since they do it in that beer commercial
Just a thought since they do it in that beer commercial
EU2
Just my 2 cents. For the fellow who wanted some Shogun type improvements, i dont think it will happen. Its probably not feasible, besides EU isnt that type of game. I enjoyed Shogun thoroughly but EU is a strategy game and the military aspect is only a small part of the whole. Better video of battle might be desirable but the game is already complex enough without having to fight every battle personally. As for the period EU2 should span, i would like to see a Napoleonic era game based on the same engine. Perhaps any improvements could be released for EU in a patch. Also a Roman era game based on the same engine would be a big hit.
Just my 2 cents. For the fellow who wanted some Shogun type improvements, i dont think it will happen. Its probably not feasible, besides EU isnt that type of game. I enjoyed Shogun thoroughly but EU is a strategy game and the military aspect is only a small part of the whole. Better video of battle might be desirable but the game is already complex enough without having to fight every battle personally. As for the period EU2 should span, i would like to see a Napoleonic era game based on the same engine. Perhaps any improvements could be released for EU in a patch. Also a Roman era game based on the same engine would be a big hit.
If they did EU2 over the time period from the rise of alexander the great to the fall of rome, i would be foaming at the mouth to get it.
I am unclear as to what the parameters of this discussion are. If it is what do I want the spinoff of EU to be, I understand that the poll for that has been run already. (For the record, I wanted a classical Greek/Roman era game.)
If the question is, would I buy an redo of the 1492 - 1792 game, the answer is a qualified yes. The qualificaitions are due to uncertainty of what we would get. I would hope to get an improved AI, a full world map (no permanent "terra incognita" - rather different, and more difficult terrain in these areas), and a "randomized America" - so that the rush to Manhatten can be moderated somewhat.
If the question is, would I buy an redo of the 1492 - 1792 game, the answer is a qualified yes. The qualificaitions are due to uncertainty of what we would get. I would hope to get an improved AI, a full world map (no permanent "terra incognita" - rather different, and more difficult terrain in these areas), and a "randomized America" - so that the rush to Manhatten can be moderated somewhat.
EU2 and realism
I don't even have the first EU (but I plan on getting it as soon as my computer and my funds allow it), but I do want to say something about EU2.
Some of you seem to be close to obsessed with the idea that things in the game should be as they were in the real world. Why ? I ask. What about the prospect of conquering the world as the Holy Roman Empire ? What about making the Byzantine empire the new master of the world ?
I too like realism, but I don't want it to deny me the possibilities of making a mark on the game myself.
The peoples love, my strength
I don't even have the first EU (but I plan on getting it as soon as my computer and my funds allow it), but I do want to say something about EU2.
Some of you seem to be close to obsessed with the idea that things in the game should be as they were in the real world. Why ? I ask. What about the prospect of conquering the world as the Holy Roman Empire ? What about making the Byzantine empire the new master of the world ?
I too like realism, but I don't want it to deny me the possibilities of making a mark on the game myself.
The peoples love, my strength
By the way:
Could one imagine EU3 going from, say 1930-2230 ? Wouldn't it be exiting, to shape the outcome of WW2, and the future ?
Could one imagine EU3 going from, say 1930-2230 ? Wouldn't it be exiting, to shape the outcome of WW2, and the future ?
EU2
I think the classical idea is good.. I'd look rabid trying to be the first to get it. The Napoleonic era has enough games.. why make another one?? But the game is fine.. Sure it'd be nice to send Roman legions off to fight some evil germans, or to kick Persia's ass with the mighty Macedonian phalanx. But would it really still be Europa Universalis? Or an evolved version of Centurion: Defender of Rome. Europa Universalis is mystic in itself because of the time period. Just make the AI a tad bit smarter, and get rid of that blasted permanent terra incognita, and it's a perfect sequel to the first.
Of course the crusades would be nice to see Thats not too far out of context, but it should be a scenario in itself, and not the beginning of the game. I mean, lets be realistic here.. Who could imagine singing praises to the Byzantine Emperor when he visits manhattan in 1700? Just not possible.
Anyhoo, the one thing that should not happen in a sequel is Napoleon... I've played so many games about the era I just wanna take a knife to Napoleon when he was a child.
I think the classical idea is good.. I'd look rabid trying to be the first to get it. The Napoleonic era has enough games.. why make another one?? But the game is fine.. Sure it'd be nice to send Roman legions off to fight some evil germans, or to kick Persia's ass with the mighty Macedonian phalanx. But would it really still be Europa Universalis? Or an evolved version of Centurion: Defender of Rome. Europa Universalis is mystic in itself because of the time period. Just make the AI a tad bit smarter, and get rid of that blasted permanent terra incognita, and it's a perfect sequel to the first.
Of course the crusades would be nice to see
Thats not too far out of context, but it should be a scenario in itself, and not the beginning of the game. I mean, lets be realistic here.. Who could imagine singing praises to the Byzantine Emperor when he visits manhattan in 1700? Just not possible.Anyhoo, the one thing that should not happen in a sequel is Napoleon... I've played so many games about the era I just wanna take a knife to Napoleon when he was a child.