The big marxistic rant thread...

[MacGregor]

Then stop the constant lament. You are sad we get it. So move on and go to the EU2 forums and make EU2 the best game you can possibly make it.

As far as "But it does mean losing something we had we no longer have (except in EUII)" how can you no longer have something if you still have it? EU3 was NEVER intended to be EU2.5 or EU2 plus so you never lost it in the regard either.

You say you understand why the game is the way it is and you make it clear you don't want to wait a year until the game is modded, so why are you here? I'm being serious here. You don't need to "warn" other like minded people because all the information about what EU3 is is available and up front on these boards.

I said I'm through with this argument, so its time for you to leave it alone too. You guys don't want to acknowledge anyone has a right to an opinion but one you agree with. Anything else is asking for the game to be "straight-jacked" or "hard core determined". So either you can't read or you misrepresent what others say. I'm out of here once again.

 

[AdmiralNelson]

This whole argument seems vaguely familiar...

To the original poster: How would you feel about a "This Day in History" mod--a mod that had events that were text only that described important events in the history of whatever nation you were playing?

To everybody else: there is a tendency to polarize this issue into "You want history repeated--I want dynamic, recreated history" and "You want a fantasy game--I want plausible history." Try to avoid that, even though it is very difficult.

I'm honestly not sure what exactly is missing in this game, if my response to the OP is not the answer. So, I will attempt a parable of sorts.

In EUII, I always wanted to play the Dutch and fight the three Anglo-Dutch Wars in the mid- to late-seventeeth century and win. The problem with that is that I had the option of starting in a few set start-dates. If I started in 1419 or 1492, by the time I got to 1650 the game-world would look absolutely nothing like the historical map, and nothing would make sense and there would be no Anglo-Dutch conflict of any sort, and there would probably be no Netherlands. If I started in 1617, things still never turned out the way history did, and there would be no Anglo-Dutch conflict.

EUIII has finally provided me with the ability to pick a period in history that I like and play in it. That is an awesome feature and I love it. It's all the "period-flavor" that I, personally, need. I can start on the very date that the first Anglo-Dutch War started and beat the English myself (and with Cornelis Tromp, Michiel de Ruyter and Johan de Witt, no less). My dreams of a Dutch maritime empire to rival the real-world British Empire in the 19th century can finally be fulfilled. That was never possible in EUII, because nothing ever worked out the way it did in history. Thus, I am happy and satisfied with EUIII.

There seems to be a desire for countries to "feel different." I'm not sure precisely what is missing here, either. EUIII England still feels like England to me, at the very least as much as EUII England did. It's bloody England. There's water surrounding it and the Scots and the Irish and the French give me trouble. What more do you want? The Enclosure Movement?

There is certainly some silly AI behavior. France does need to consolidate its homeland before proceeding into Germany and Italy and wherever. That's just something that every nation should do. Consolidate your homeland before conquering foreign territory. Colonization by silly minors has been addressed. (I don't think anybody complained about that in this thread, but I said that just in case.)

I also think it's a little silly to expect history to work out the same way every time. If we started over at Christ's birth with the same people but lacking foreknowledge of how history had panned out in our world (a la the EUIII historical set-up), I bet it would it turn out differently.

Since I'm not sure what else I have to say...if whoever wants more "historical flavor" could provide me with something specific so I could better grasp what you want, that would be nice.

 

[lordy80011]

Then stop the constant lament. You are sad we get it. So move on and go to the EU2 forums and make EU2 the best game you can possibly make it.

As far as "But it does mean losing something we had we no longer have (except in EUII)" how can you no longer have something if you still have it? EU3 was NEVER intended to be EU2.5 or EU2 plus so you never lost it in the regard either.

You say you understand why the game is the way it is and you make it clear you don't want to wait a year until the game is modded, so why are you here? I'm being serious here. You don't need to "warn" other like minded people because all the information about what EU3 is is available and up front on these boards.

There is no requirement that you respond to his posts if you do not agree with them. I'd say that until a moderator asks him to refrain from sharing his polite and well-written opinions, his point of view is perfectly welcome, and shared by more than a few.

Cheers.

 

[Belissarius]

I really don't object as much as I thought to the "dynamic" nature of the play. With one REALLY BIG exception. If they are going to call it "dynamic history" then the overall constraints of historical reality should still be in place. When the game starts with France, Spain, England, Portugal, China, and a dozen other powers all choosing "Search for the New World" it completely jumps the tracks. NOBODY in 1453 knew there was a "New World" to search for...,and only ONE power was actively out exploring and colonizing at all. The Portuguese were engaged in pushing down the West Coast of Africa searching for a route to the Spice Islands..., and even they weren't looking out into the Atlantic.

The whole idea of a "Search for the New World" came about when the Portuguese were finally successful in getting around the Cape of Good Hope and into the Indian Ocean. That's when the rest of Europe suddenly realized they were at least 50 years behind in the race to these riches and started looking for a "shortcut". Even if as Austria or Poland a player wants to get into colonization, he shouldn't have the ability until someone actually discovers that there ARE places to be colonized out there. The game doesn't just "free form" play..., it "free forms" the historic realities.

Another example that's been around for a long time. As players explore, they come across more primitive states like Creek or Zulu and such. What happens next? Creek and Zulu Merchants suddenly leap into their dugouts and canoes and show up in European CoT's. Completely rediculous..., but it's been around since EUI. The game needs some realistic historical constraints on even "dynamic" play or it becomes absurd within 100 years.

The game does this because we all KNOW about the new world hell some of us live in it. So that gave the PLAYER a HUGE advantage in the game. An advantage that was easy to exploit. Hell i would DOW spain or Portugal just to attack their capital to get their maps. Because you can't Eliminate that knowledge its better to have the AI act with it than to pretend said knowledge doesnt exist.

And whats so ahistorical of China getting QFTNW hell they did send out explorers and discover much of a new world for them, the east coast of africa? Some claim they got to central america (not something I give much credence to).

This is where the divide is at its greatest. You want constraints on what can happen. i don't want those constraints because I want the AI to be as close to a human player as it can get. I grant that others don't want this but I don't see the point of the constant bitching. Johan has said the game is this way because its what he has always wanted from the game. The game is so bloody modable that it just begins to grate on me that so many people don't just shut up and start modding the game in their own image.

We get it the game isn't what you want, so start modding or leave. I mean do you really think you are going to change the direction of this game by griping? If people would actually start taking all this energy into lamenting about the game and put that energy into modding the game then they would get the game close to what they desire if not exactly what they desire.

 

[Belissarius]

There is no requirement that you respond to his posts if you do not agree with them. I'd say that until a moderator asks him to refrain from sharing his polite and well-written opinions, his point of view is perfectly welcome, and shared by more than a few.

Cheers.

You are correct but it begs the question why does he stay? Is it just to complain and try to make anyone else miserable because the game isnt what he wants? He doesnt want to mod or wait for a mod. The game isnt going to change for all his complaints. Is he here just to state his opinion over and over and over again? i was serious in my question why does he stay what does he hope will happen?

 

[Stonewall]

I'm rather confused.

EU3 is on a developmental scale vastly ahead of EU2...even the fully patched 1.09. Have the people who are lamenting the lack of historical events bothered to look at the modding power that is present in this game? Its staggering the things one can do, the events one can create, the potential situations one can replicate. Staggering. Completely and utterly staggering.

Point is this: For all the energy wasted in threads like these trying to push one's personal opinion down the throat of others (regardless which side of the debate you're on), you could be participating in a mod discussion and try and change what you do not like, what you think can be better, or what you think would simply be uber cool. Whether thats a LoTR mod, or a new and improved AGCEEP, it matters not.

The game is what it is. There is a framework that has been setup. We can't change the framework, we can only work within it. As someone who extensively played and modded for EU2 (Vanilla, AGC, EEP, Aberation, and the AGCEEP), I can say without pause that EU3 is so vastly superior that is is ridiculous to even compare to EU2.

So, for those people not satisfied with the vanilla version, please come to the modding forum and participate in one of the many worthwhile modding projects taking place. There are some talented people with some fantastic ideas working there. If you don't want to do that, you can play vanilla or you can complain. Given the choice, I'm not quite sure why one would complain rather than play. But, hey. To each his own.

 

[Moltke]

This thread raises interesting points. I was continuing my game as the big blob of Burgundy earlier when it occurred to me... these "nations" could be called anything. They could be bacteria cultures vying for space in a human body. In the absence of any real context the only thing that makes them countries is the players imagination.

I must be crazy. I'm gonna go drink some beer.


p.s. who wants to make a Bacteria-cultures mod with me?

 

[AdmiralNelson]

... these "nations" could be called anything. They could be bacteria cultures vying for space in a human body. In the absence of any real context the only thing that makes them countries is the players imagination.

What would make this game better, in that regard?

 

[Belissarius]

I'm rather confused.

EU3 is on a developmental scale vastly ahead of EU2...even the fully patched 1.09. Have the people who are lamenting the lack of historical events bothered to look at the modding power that is present in this game? Its staggering the things one can do, the events one can create, the potential situations one can replicate. Staggering. Completely and utterly staggering.

Point is this: For all the energy wasted in threads like these trying to push one's personal opinion down the throat of others (regardless which side of the debate you're on), you could be participating in a mod discussion and try and change what you do not like, what you think can be better, or what you think would simply be uber cool. Whether thats a LoTR mod, or a new and improved AGCEEP, it matters not.

The game is what it is. There is a framework that has been setup. We can't change the framework, we can only work within it. As someone who extensively played and modded for EU2 (Vanilla, AGC, EEP, Aberation, and the AGCEEP), I can say without pause that EU3 is so vastly superior that is is ridiculous to even compare to EU2.

So, for those people not satisfied with the vanilla version, please come to the modding forum and participate in one of the many worthwhile modding projects taking place. There are some talented people with some fantastic ideas working there. If you don't want to do that, you can play vanilla or you can complain. Given the choice, I'm not quite sure why one would complain rather than play. But, hey. To each his own.

Indeed. I saw your thread in the mod forum and i was impressed with your goals. I couldn't respond because i am waiting for my CE copy to show up in the post. I am confused as you are about this. I have looked at the demo's events and it blows my mind at whats possible. I think that some have seen that their tricks and techniques they used to tweak EU2 don't work in eu2 so they have wrongly concluded that its not possible to do what they want.

 

[unmerged(7197)]

I'm rather confused.

EU3 is on a developmental scale vastly ahead of EU2...even the fully patched 1.09. Have the people who are lamenting the lack of historical events bothered to look at the modding power that is present in this game? Its staggering the things one can do, the events one can create, the potential situations one can replicate. Staggering. Completely and utterly staggering.

Point is this: For all the energy wasted in threads like these trying to push one's personal opinion down the throat of others (regardless which side of the debate you're on), you could be participating in a mod discussion and try and change what you do not like, what you think can be better, or what you think would simply be uber cool. Whether thats a LoTR mod, or a new and improved AGCEEP, it matters not.

The game is what it is. There is a framework that has been setup. We can't change the framework, we can only work within it. As someone who extensively played and modded for EU2 (Vanilla, AGC, EEP, Aberation, and the AGCEEP), I can say without pause that EU3 is so vastly superior that is is ridiculous to even compare to EU2.

So, for those people not satisfied with the vanilla version, please come to the modding forum and participate in one of the many worthwhile modding projects taking place. There are some talented people with some fantastic ideas working there. If you don't want to do that, you can play vanilla or you can complain. Given the choice, I'm not quite sure why one would complain rather than play. But, hey. To each his own.

I dont have time to participate in modding community, hell i dont even have time to complain/praise EU3. I dont buy games today to play in a year or two when 1.XX patch is out and superduper mod is done.

So ill wait till then, and if by then its seems a cool game, ill pick it up in the 19.99 bin at EB.

 

[unmerged(514)]

I doubt it. CK never developed one.

What has CK to do with EU3?

 

[unmerged(514)]

There is no requirement that you respond to his posts if you do not agree with them. I'd say that until a moderator asks him to refrain from sharing his polite and well-written opinions, his point of view is perfectly welcome, and shared by more than a few.

Cheers.

Belissarius is making truly an effort to at least post decently. You should see his posts quality of a week and half ago... Celebrate him. He is improving.

 

[Belissarius]

Belissarius is making truly an effort to at least post decently. You should see his posts quality of a week and half ago... Celebrate him. He is improving.

Yes a week and a half ago my posts we so inferior in quality that Johan said I had a nomination for post of the month because of my understanding about this very issue. It was funny that the "other side" just ignored that post.

 

[unmerged(514)]

You are correct but it begs the question why does he stay? Is it just to complain and try to make anyone else miserable because the game isnt what he wants? He doesnt want to mod or wait for a mod. The game isnt going to change for all his complaints. Is he here just to state his opinion over and over and over again? i was serious in my question why does he stay what does he hope will happen?

I don't know if you read about the board, but it seems to me he is not alone in his critique... I feel there is one or three more (one, probably) who share his opinions. And I cannot recall about the OP to start another thread with this subject. So, why do you HAVE to post on his thread if you like the game as it is? Let the guy lament. Let those sorry one or three losers lament also (one, probably).

 

[unmerged(514)]

Yes a week and a half ago my posts we so inferior in quality that Johan said I had a nomination for post of the month because of my understanding about this very issue. It was funny that the "other side" just ignored that post.

Indeed, and precisely in your NEXT post you vomited over the "nomination", wasn't it, Belissarius?

 

[GeneralHannibal]

Just noticing, it is amazing how polarized people have become and how shrunken the middle ground has become. A few hard-liners (Mainly people who were mostly moderate but had a few strong opinions) have pushed everybody else to either end and made the whole thing more divided. If people would try to look at the modding system and things like that, and actually try to solve their problem, so much more could be done.

 

[unmerged(514)]

I'm rather confused.

EU3 is on a developmental scale vastly ahead of EU2...even the fully patched 1.09. Have the people who are lamenting the lack of historical events bothered to look at the modding power that is present in this game? Its staggering the things one can do, the events one can create, the potential situations one can replicate. Staggering. Completely and utterly staggering.

Point is this: For all the energy wasted in threads like these trying to push one's personal opinion down the throat of others (regardless which side of the debate you're on), you could be participating in a mod discussion and try and change what you do not like, what you think can be better, or what you think would simply be uber cool. Whether thats a LoTR mod, or a new and improved AGCEEP, it matters not.

The game is what it is. There is a framework that has been setup. We can't change the framework, we can only work within it. As someone who extensively played and modded for EU2 (Vanilla, AGC, EEP, Aberation, and the AGCEEP), I can say without pause that EU3 is so vastly superior that is is ridiculous to even compare to EU2.

So, for those people not satisfied with the vanilla version, please come to the modding forum and participate in one of the many worthwhile modding projects taking place. There are some talented people with some fantastic ideas working there. If you don't want to do that, you can play vanilla or you can complain. Given the choice, I'm not quite sure why one would complain rather than play. But, hey. To each his own.

You are right, up to a point. You cannot direct the AI. In fact, going against Poland is exactly the same as going against the Ottomans. They play using the same priorities. The lack to give each AI a sort of personality is a big drawback.

Also, the standard game is a very nice sandbox where historical plausible outcomes are as about to happen as fantasy outcomes. But this stems mainly fromt he lck of evens an the above mentioned single AI.

 

[MacGregor]

. . . Let those sorry one or three losers lament also (one, probably). . . .

That's not very becoming.

 

[unmerged(514)]

That's not very becoming.

That was also ironic...

 

[AdmiralNelson]

In fact, going against Poland is exactly the same as going against the Ottomans. They play using the same priorities. The lack to give each AI a sort of personality is a big drawback.

AH! So the "lack of historical flavor" that is being perceived is not in the player's nation but in the opponents, then?