The big marxistic rant thread...

[unmerged(58557)]

It's History, made Fun!

I posted elsewhere (in a large angry thread that probably got lost) that one of my dissapointments with EUIII (I love the game, though) is that there is little historical context. I'm not saying I want scripted history (I don't), but I'm saying that one of the nice bits about previous "less dynamic" Paradox games was the fact that you learned a heck of a lot.

My other Paradox experiences were Vicky and HOI2, and I loved all the detailed descriptions of events and countries. In EUIII there are just those few generic write-ups at the beginning of the game.

One of the most interesting parts of a Paradox game, IMHO, is seeing how history unfolds "this time". Like in HOI2... if there is no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact you know things are going to be very different indeed, and that it is a big deal.

While I knew *of* the MR Pact before playing HOI2, I learned so much more about it from playing the game, and this was true of many aspects of WWII. I would play countries just to experience & read the events. It was interesting to learn, AND increased my enjoyment of the game.

But in EUIII if Country A and Country B don't do thing C together... or is War A never happens, or if country D doesn't annex country E... it just doesn't mean as much (if anything) to me.

Unfortunately, it would appear the people who are going to enjoy EUIII the most are people 1) Who know nothing about history, and/or don't care or 2) Who are real history buffs on the era. All the people in the creamy middle (like me) get left behind a little.

So, once again, its not the lack of scripting I miss (I don't); its the historical context.

 

[unmerged(66924)]

i think the idea was to invest their time in other areas,while continuing to open modding ability so that the community can help you to make the game as historical as you wish.

 

[Hertog Jan]

I posted elsewhere (in a large angry thread that probably got lost) that one of my dissapointments with EUIII (I love the game, though) is that there is little historical context. I'm not saying I want scripted history (I don't), but I'm saying that one of the nice bits about previous "less dynamic" Paradox games was the fact that you learned a heck of a lot.

My other Paradox experiences were Vicky and HOI2, and I loved all the detailed descriptions of events and countries. In EUIII there are just those few generic write-ups at the beginning of the game.

One of the most interesting parts of a Paradox game, IMHO, is seeing how history unfolds "this time". Like in HOI2... if there is no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact you know things are going to be very different indeed, and that it is a big deal.

While I knew *of* the MR Pact before playing HOI2, I learned so much more about it from playing the game, and this was true of many aspects of WWII. I would play countries just to experience & read the events. It was interesting to learn, AND increased my enjoyment of the game.

But in EUIII if Country A and Country B don't do thing C together... or is War A never happens, or if country D doesn't annex country E... it just doesn't mean as much (if anything) to me.

Unfortunately, it would appear the people who are going to enjoy EUIII the most are people 1) Who know nothing about history, and/or don't care or 2) Who are real history buffs on the era. All the people in the creamy middle (like me) get left behind a little.

So, once again, its not the lack of scripting I miss (I don't); its the historical context.

Well I can say I'm quite a history buff, but somehow I don't miss the historical context. The historical context is created by the player.

EU II could be played by knowing history well. You knew Russia would get an exceptionally talented monarch at the turn of the 18th century, Peter the Great. You could plan your wars around the reigns of talented monarchs and favourable events.

EU III, however, does a good job of making players react to what's happening now, not to what is going to happen. You're very much reduced to a real ruler of that era. You only know the past, not what tomorrow will bring. Off course you can try to play historically, but this time you can count on the fact that the computer will resist attempts to form, let's say, a Russian empire or a powerful English colonial empire.

Even though I haven't played past the 1480's yet, I know religion has been reworked. The Reformation might never happen or may be more successful than in real life. If you want to remain a Catholic nation as Spain, you need to fight for it this time, perhaps even against your own subjects.

EU III is much less static than its predecessor and has become a game of action and reaction instead of a highly scripted game.

About learning history from the EU games. I think EUII taught us a lot of history from this period. I don't think EU III could have added a lot more to that.

 

[unmerged(58557)]

You make my point exactly. People who know a whole ton about the period (like you say you do) are happy. But for someone like me who DIDN'T play EUII... and DOESN'T know the history exactly, we are left out in the cold a bit.

I'm not saying I want scripted history (X Monarch at Y Date), I'm saying I want the background information of reality to go WITH the dynamic structure of the game.

 

[Antimatter]

I think that modders will add in all the historical context you could ever want eventually. Personally, I like it as it is for the most part. You get a very freeform game where you make your own history, and the game is open enough to allow modders to add all the historical events that are missing. Hopefully it will end up the best of both worlds in the end. On the other hand, I would say I would like to see the AI have more of an "inclination" to do certain things. For instance, Castille doesn't seem very motivated to form Spain. They don't really try most of the time. Same for many other nations doing certain things. France and England should hate each other, the Ottomans should expand instead of just sit there, France should try to unite France, etc. Basically the AI seems to be too generic, where they all just analyze the cost-benefit ration of what they're doing and have no inclination to do anything that doesn't fit their formula.

 

[MacGregor]

You make my point exactly. People who know a whole ton about the period (like you say you do) are happy.

Not all of us.

But for someone like me who DIDN'T play EUII... and DOESN'T know the history exactly, we are left out in the cold a bit.

Some who did play EUII feel left out too. Go buy it, it's worth the money.

I'm not saying I want scripted history (X Monarch at Y Date), I'm saying I want the background information of reality to go WITH the dynamic structure of the game.

"Scripted history" or "deterministic history" are slurs that the pro "dynamic system" people like to throw around. They know we are right, so they try to muddy the water by misrepresenting what we want.

 

[unmerged(63467)]

Immersion. This is a recurring point, and I doubt we'll clear it up here. That said, for what it's worth...

The dynamic nature of EU3 makes it fun qua game. The different players react to what is happening around them in a fairly natural way; large aggressive powers meet with alliances of mutual suspicion; and the new world is colonised (albeit very fast, but this has been a problem since EU1 and is down to the fact that, well, most of us are aware that there's something nice west of the Pillars of Hercules and so is the computer).

Note that I say players, not countries. Since we can't see another nation's sliders, we have no idea what the world of our neighbours is like except for their alliances, religion and the quality of their rulers. Say I'm Burgundy - I don't know if France is ruled by a centralising king whose subjects are little more than slaves, or an enlightened laissez-faire ruler whose people are the freest in Europe. I don't know if the army that I just smashed in Ile-de-France was composed of medieval peasant levies, Maurician musketeers, or pseudo-Spanish Tercios.

The events do force you to make choices that effect gameplay. Yet for all that, they remain as flavourless as low-sugar chewing gum on the third bite. Army and Navy reform? Great! Done that. Hanseatic Kontor? Built it. What was the Hanseatic league? Who were the other members? Well, I know what it was in the real world - but not in the dynamically generated one that EU3 creates.

It can be trite to speak of babies, bathwater, and the unfortunate disposal of the first along with the second. But I feel that this is what has happened here: by quite rightly removing nation-specific historical events, Paradox has also stripped much of the texture from its nations. With dynamic events that are not linked to any cultural group, there is nothing to separate the reform of Austria's armies from the birth of the Tercio from Cromwell's New Model; and the word 'Huguenot' is never coined as protestantism spreads in precisely the same fashion in Guyenne as it does in Gdansk - or Grimsby (though I have yet to see an Anglican England unless I choose a late starting date).

There is also an old complaint; the progress through history is barely felt. We spend much of the game not at war but governing our own nations, but where is the feeling of progress from 1453 to 1789? In the absence of a changing city graphic (one can hardly argue that buildings requiring higher tech represent this as a number of provinces begin the game with, for example, Universities or Textile Mills), it was the changing events that laid muscle and flesh on the bones of the game model. It is perhaps no bad thing for us to be cast back on our own imaginations - the endless inventiveness of this community has produced and will continue to produce excellent AARs. Yet a little more graphical change would help us to feel that time is really passing in our digital worlds - and that we are rewriting history, not merely running a rather clever simulation.

 

[MacGregor]

I think that modders will add in all the historical context you could ever want eventually. . . .

I'm not holding out a great deal of hope for the mods. Just a quick looked showing mods like the "Great Big Mod" which disclaims wanting anything other than more "dynamic events" and "Fantasy Mod" (complete with Orcs!!!) as being among the favorites. It seems the hardcore history people haven't really decided whether to get involved, or haven't decided whether with the game engine it's really worth it. Some things, like individual country AI is not possible with the current engine. Anyway, to get a really good mod along the lines of the Improved Grand Campaigns of EUs past you're going to need a lot of people putting in a year or more of really hard work. I don't see that interest on the mod board at present, and who wants to wait a year or more to play the game anyway?

So those claiming that the mods will satisfy the more historically inclined may not be right. This game just might not be really moddable to give plausible history with its current engine, and I understand that's WAD (If i hear WAD again I'm going to spit . A design element can still work and be the wrong decision ). I understand the reason for the change in concept, it's to make the "game" more challenging. However, going in that direction Paradox is leaving a niche which was their strenght for a much larger niche where they are still bit players. Of course, financially it may be a good bet, and hats off to them for that.

As far as enjoying fantasy history made up by gameplaying, that too I don't buy, at all. I detest ahistorical novels, movies, et al and feel no different about ahistorical games. Just not to my taste.

 

[McNaughton]

I too like the fact that you 'create' and 'react' to history in EU3. I am finding that I am not following a timetable, but reacting and planning based on my situation. While the first few years can be predictable, beyond that, things get really interesting as you never know what will happen, who will be the superpower. In EU2, if Russia or the Ottomans stalled, it was a boring game. In EU3, if Russia or the Ottomans stall, then someone else comes into power and fills the vacuum.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[unmerged(66388)]

My two cents. I miss the history too. I hate to say it, but my brain absorbs more knowledge from this kind of outlet then any amount of classroom time or booknosing. More importantly, i have passed two history courses in my brief college based heavily on the historic additions into PI games. When a question on my test asks what were the motivations for colonizing the new world, alot of it derives from my own questions when playing EU games. But when questions of the formation of GB or Spain or even beyond as Germany and Italy, Victoria and EU really gave me te backgrounds for it.

My only wish for this area is an option to play historical or not historical. While yes you know a great monarch might be coming up soon, your earlier choices will still affect your empire's state more then he will. I, and plenty of others, have carved out massive empires from nations big and small that weren't built on single events or leaders but instead on strong play. And the history tended to offer flavor to the game. Unifications, mergers, rebel causes all were important to forging the history of the world, and the current script seems to lack the impetus to bring it about. The netherlands will never form in my current game because of Burgundy never disapearing. THe French are content with doing nothing more then trading and Castile and the Ottomans have never truly expanded(colonizations somewhat, but not to the extent historically). More often i notice the alternate nations take up the mantle of unification. The Persians, the Mameluks, the Palitanate, Malacans etc. The real movers and shakers historically are played as one person put it, with ben counters. Weighing the costs and risks and never crossing lines.

I just miss neat bits of facts, like how poland stopped the Ottomans march across europe. Thats all

 

[unmerged(35036)]

Great Engine, Bad Game?

First of all i don't want anybody to think im mad or anything, this is just a point of view from a Gamer who played most paradox games starting from EUII (VIC, HOI, HOI2, DD, Etc).

What made paradox games great was, some of the times you played em, balance and a kind of historical reality.

Yes even when games could be completely changed by the player, if you played like historically your nation did, most of the rest of the world would follow, the result was amazing, you could completely destroy reality or play it to learn, events was fun to read, you could learn a thing or two about countries you barely knew about.

This is great in most Paradox games, what happened with EUIII?

Is this a Paradox game?

I can't understand, even when EUIII have an amazing engine thats much better than its succesor, this game don't looks finished at all.

The only events moded are totally dinamic events for any nation to have, wich might be good in MP, but in SP, some things are really weird.

Nations like Prussia can't be created, Netherlands will never revolt, the list can go longer.

All this new dinamic core system, wich really looks cool and promising, goes to hell when you play a GP, nations like Saxony could end owning most of Germany with cores and all, nations like Venice could cease to exist, the weirdest thing i saw is Champa owning nearly all Indonesia (with cores and all, this might be becouse there are no defenses there) then to see Brunei take over Champa empire in a single war.

My view about this game is this, this is a great engine, but the game is left for the modders to finish it, there is not a single historic event.

All i can say is, this is not what i used to expect from Paradox games, i expected something better than EU2, and at the end, i guess im going back to play EU2 AGEEEP, maybe with time some modder will make EU3 a great game, a shame he will do it for free..

Again, this is my point of view, i hope no moderators get mad on this, or any other people calling me anything.

I love paradox games, im just a bit dissapointed at EU3, thats all.

 

[unmerged(58557)]

Thanks Swordhelm, I'm with you. And for me... I know nothing about Poland stoppiong Ottomans, but I wish I did!

I would love it if the context of history were somehow included in game. Some of the respondants to this thread seem to be making the dynamic/static historical/ahistorical argument, and I'm really not making that point.

I'm happy with dynamic, I just want some flavor and context.

I know this is beyond the scope of the current AI, but I wish there were some sort of moddable text file that would give a nation 'goals' or maybe a 'to-do list'. So the France AI might be 1) Unify With Vassals, 2) Conquer Europe 3) Colonize Africa (or whatever)... and weight could be given to each 'item'. That way the AI would behave in a somewhat 'realistic' manner, but on occasion might go its own way, or if a bigger threat/issue comes up, act accordingly.

I know its not possible as is, but I just wish it were.

 

[unmerged(16181)]

All of this can and will be altered in mods. The only really significant problem is the inability to create country-specific AI files.

 

[unmerged(35036)]

I felt a bit dissapointed as well

I wrote this about how i feel with EUIII
Here

But resuming, i was an event lover, i loved AGCEEP and other mods that added content to the game.

The dinamic System ROX, i can't complain becouse it gives great playability to the game, but what about LORE and BALANCE?

There is no Balance in this new system, and things that couldn't happen in real history, happens in this game like a normal thing, for an instance a small nation like Champa taking over all Indonesia.

For example inside the German Principalities, you saw a lot of anexations in EU2, but now its rapage, whole areas are taken over by small nations, just by mere luck or something else, then cores are added to em, so there are no revolters, without revolters lot of nations will never exist, wich is fairly unhistorical.

In EU2 you could see either France our Austria rape nations, wich was kinda not far from real History, now you could see anything, if i wanted to play a fantasy game i wouldn't play Paradox Games.

Why don't they release a game named "The rapage of nations", with this engine, everybody will be happy, but as far as im concerned, that is what EU series was not about, we use to learn history with EU series.

I remember when cores was the most important things about EU2, now its all you can eat, take over, hold out for some years, then core, you could world conquest in no time if you want to.

 

[unmerged(42223)]

....maybe with time some modder will make EU3 a great game, a shame he will do it for free..

I love paradox games, im just a bit dissapointed at EU3, thats all.

Actually as a modder, I would say the only one thinking it is a shame I do it for free is my wife.


Specified scenarios are secondary to a great game engine with a pliable and universal application.

I would wait, it will be worth it.

 

[Powerslave]

I understand your disappointment and I think it's sad for all of those wanting to play several centuries in a world that should evolve remotly as irl. I disliked that... if I wanted a game with Netherland or Prussia I simply started a later scenario when either of these two great nations already existed. To me it felt too deterministic that these nation SHOULD form every time (even if they didn't do that). However first of all I don't think EU2 did a very good job at being very historic in the first place. There wasn't that many historical events at all and only a few of them really mattered in the long run. Historical monarchs and leaders was the worst of all for me as most of the time they really didn't made any sense. I think Paradox made the right decision by making the game dynamicly and not straightjacketing the AI. Now the AI (almost as a human) looks for how to evolve his nation in the best possible way and that creates a bigger challenge for the player.

If you look back all the way to EU1 there were hardly any events at all. But one thing EU1 had and that now has been represented by sliders were hardcoded values for every nation. Russia could for example build low quality infantry very cheap. Nations also had hardcoded relation modifiers to eachother. France would rarely ally with England. Even though sliders are better I still think these nation values was a good thing as it really felt you were playing different nations.

Anyhow I think the released EU3 universally better than when EU2 was released. I haven't had any CTD at all so far and even though I know people has reported bugs I haven't seen them at all. EU3 is a quality product.

That's my humble opinion anyway.

 

[Cthulhuvong]

Now I like Paradox's games, I've played HOI, HOI 2, DD, Vicky, Ricky, CK, and EU2 (though not much of the last one). So when I heard about this I was optimistic, until I saw the graphics. I figured that they just wanted to try and work their way into the 3D market, since thats where the Total War series went with a large sucess. I hoped that they would make this game just as good as the others, but with the new graphics. However, I dreaded the feeling I was getting. Deep down I feared that they would spend their time making the graphics and interface nice rather than actually working on the game.

When I heard some of the first reviews on this forum, it seemed like my fears were right. Rather than add in historical events, we have generic and otherwise absent events. All nations are set on more or less equal footing, except for Chirstian and "lucky" nations. They game keeps itself historical up to the point at which you start it, and then it goes completely ahistorical. And as I feared, it seems they left the realism up to the modders, and made half a game for the players to fix.

 

[unmerged(6310)]

Maybe I don't understand how the event system worked, but personally, I don't want events thrown at me just because it's Year X on the calender.

I want the game to react to MY decisions. If I rule my country in a way that the event at Year X shouldn't occur - then why should I get it? If I met the requirements earlier than historically "accurate" then why shouldn't I get the event earlier? The tech system is starting to get to me because it doesn't work that way, it "pre-destines" you to be stuck at a level, even if I want to specialize in it. Why can't I rush my land army development while ignoring everything else? My choice should make me deficient elsewhere and I'll have to deal with those consequences, while at the same time giving options on what to do with my world-leading land-based military technology.

I believe it should work the same way for the AI players. If something happens, they should react to the environment, not just meet historical dates. To me, that would make the game boring to play after a while because you then know everything that's going to happen and when it will happen.

I like the way the game is set up. I get the scenario, the people, and the environment as of year X and country Y that I choose to start the game in, and then am thrown into the world to make my own choices and reap the consequences of those choices. I mean, a king at that period wouldn't know what event "should" occur 10 years later. It would be his actions that help shape what would happen 10 years later and I think the game reflects that. Maybe it's because I love the Romance of the Three Kingdoms series and this game works a lot like that.

To me, it's more realistic to run that way than to have things pre-destined on your country on a given date regardless of the choices you made to that point.

Again, this might be my misunderstanding, but I don't see the nations as being on equal standing. I mean, just looking at my game as Japan, I see the Ming Dynasty owning everything while Mongolia gets crushed and Manchu trying to hold on. Korea is relatively small and Ryukyu is just a tiny island. Meanwhile, I'm stuck on level 1 for the next 100 years and am trying, ever so slowly, to get an advantage by being a colonial force, seemingly the only one in East Asia right now.

 

[unmerged(1823)]

remind me again..

What exactly was the difference between playing Switzerland and Bavaria in eu2? (And that is not present in eu3?)

 

[Belissarius]

Most historical events can be duplicated with the current event system. There a few historical events that cant be duplicated. So the idea that there are no historical events is false. If the same/similar situations arise then you will get historical events they are just no long tied to a specific country or specific date they are tied to specific triggers which is far better than the old event system.

There is room for improving the events in terms of numbers of events or in all posible situations that happen historicaly this is the case with all paradox games. Perhaps the triggers for events need tweaking but it doesnt mean the historical events are missing they are indeed in the game.

I think people got comfortable with EU2 and that part of the reason why SOME people are resisting this. Others are the historical simulation crowd that want the game to playout like history the majority of the time. These people have been bucking up against paradox since the EU series began. Johan has said so many times that its a game Not a historical simulation. Paradox never was satisfied with the event system because it just didn't make sense once the game began.