The There Will Be War Conversion Thread

[Sid Meier]

So far I have determined the following:

There is a converter for the following games:

CK->EU2
CK->EU3

EU2->RICKY

RICKY->HOI2D:A

EU3->RICKY //IN PROGRESS

So far by default it looks like the default path well take is EU2, however I would like everyone to have an honest and fair chance to choose which game path they would like.

I am personally more used to EU2 and prefer its feel, but EU3 has all the features nessasary for this kind of conversion game (and is balanced to the point of making nerfing China a moot point) and I can throw in additional players.

As such lets begin work (or begin to continue work) on a EU3->Ricky converter due 1 week before the end of the CK era.

King of Men wants Ruby, I'll be learning this in school in about a week or so so I am okay with it and I have most of the data files needed for a correct conversion not is a matter of converting provinces.

 

[hyme]

So far I have determined the following:

There is a converter for the following games:

CK->EU2
CK->EU3

EU2->RICKY

RICKY->HOI2D:A

EU3->RICKY //IN PROGRESS

So far by default it looks like the default path well take is EU2, however I would like everyone to have an honest and fair chance to choose which game path they would like.

I am personally more used to EU2 and prefer its feel, but EU3 has all the features nessasary for this kind of conversion game (and is balanced to the point of making nerfing China a moot point) and I can throw in additional players.

As such lets begin work (or begin to continue work) on a EU3->Ricky converter due 1 week before the end of the CK era.

King of Men wants Ruby, I'll be learning this in school in about a week or so so I am okay with it and I have most of the data files needed for a correct conversion not is a matter of converting provinces.

i would like to go CK->EU3.

 

[BurningEGO]

You make me remember Portuguese Socialists. They make us vote for something they want to pass. We say no. But they keep doing this over and over again till we vote yes.

I obviously vote for EU2, as did the majority when i joined the game in CK. I thought we had already decided that.

EU3 has many problems and we all know that paradox games are kinda unplayable till they launch a proper patch (look at EU2 in the past or at DV at this stage, with all these fatal errors).

We would also have another problem - play EU3 itself or EU3:NA? Many people havent even bought NA. And many havent even bought EU3 itself. Buying EU3 and NA from scrap costs roughly 60$. I bought EU2, 4-5 years ago and it costed me 5 euros. In gamersgate it is about 10-15$ AFAIK.

As for China... Sid, you must be joking. China, is far, far stronger in EU3 then in EU2. And it would require, bigger, and i really mean, bigger edits to make it balanced. The provinces start with a bloody awesome population (even higher then EU2!) and even the AI conquers all the way from Korea to the Mediteranean.

In EU2, we know what we are counting with. In EU3 i fear we will be forced to have another "peace and prosperity" type of game. From what i have seen most players just pick the Quest for the New World and start exploring the world by 1453 and colonizing without doing any war at all (after all colonies are so profitable and even give manpower!). It is even worse then Victoria. This has seriously stolen the sense of "human interaction" that exists in EU2.

While it is true that EU3 is more stable, got more players and got some new options, it is also true that you will have players dropping constantly from the game. Which does not happen so much as in EU2. I have seen more games ending in EU3 since it was launched, then in EU2-MP, which i joined since almost 2 years ago.

To sum it all: EU2 is very cheap, and everyone can afford it. EU2 is more balanced and very easy to learn to play with, we will get a better and more reliable crew - while having the fun we all wish to, and having the desired human-to-human interaction and not the "peace and prosperity" crap that exists in EU3 (EU3 is just about AI bashing and damned colonization).

After all, EU2 is like Porto's wine. The older, the better.


P.S: Btw KOM, i know what was the problem with the MyMap conversion in MTT. It wasnt the map at all - but the save. Some nation controlled and owned a province that was controlled and owned by another nation. That makes no crash at game start, but once the nation that in your eyes (in the map) holds the province, looses it, the game will keep crashing.

If we go with EU2, i believe we should adopt WATK since there are converters for that as well (ones that dont crash! ), and WATK (which is a map mod) contains more provinces (but not in the exagerated amount MyMap does), ideal for a campaign with so many players as this one.

 

[Sid Meier]

Actually in EU3 China long term has the disadvantage compared to Europe, especially compared to tech speed, colonizing oppurtunities etc, having played EU3 extensively I can say that in EU3 absolutely no edits are rwquired because EURO nations will outpace Asia technologically which is the important one.

 

[BurningEGO]

Btw, once i joined KOM had said this:

We will convert to EU2 upon reaching 1419, or conceivably, if all players agree, to EU3 upon reaching 1453.

That was why i joined. We would be playing EU2, and would only switch to EU3, only and only if all players agreed.

 

[ulmont]

I obviously vote for EU2, as did the majority when i joined the game in CK. I thought we had already decided that.

I really don't understand how you can have been a part of the thread including: this post and this post and think that the EU2 / EU3 question was completely settled.

I know you essentially said you would not be playing if the game used EU3, but many people may be considering that a feature rather than a bug at this point.

 

[ulmont]

Btw, once i joined KOM had said this

Note that that is post #60 in the thread, well before KOM's "we'll see in six months to a year" posts (#272 and #293). Six months to a year from those posts is four to ten months from now. If you stopped reading the thread at post #60 (which you obviously didn't), that's your fault.

 

[BurningEGO]

Note that that is post #60 in the thread, well before KOM's "we'll see in six months to a year" posts (#272 and #293). Six months to a year from those posts is four to ten months from now. If you stopped reading the thread at post #60 (which you obviously didn't), that's your fault.

I think there was a consensus for EU2 at this point; however, by six months from now EU3 may well have got two patches and be in a much more playable state.

It isnt in a much more playable state (compared to EU2), in fact its almost the same as in the previous patches, except for some colonization stuff they changed. So i dont know why should we change to EU3 if the consensus was for EU2. I dont know why the number of the post matters for the discussion at hand.

But if you want to check the numbers of the posts, you would be wise to see that i joined right after KOM said we would convert to EU2 (he said that in post 60 and i joined in post 61). Sid had asked me to join since the thread was created, however i refused, till KOM finally stated we would be converting to EU2.

Lastly, might i ask who are you? Are you playing the game? No? If not, then what are you doing here?

 

[joriandrake]

hmm...i have to say i would rather have an eu3 conversation, but that is just my own voice...

 

[ulmont]

you would be wise to see that i joined right after KOM said we would convert to EU2 (he said that in post 60 and i joined in post 61). Sid had asked me to join since the thread was created, however i refused, till KOM finally stated we would be converting to EU2.

And again, then you stopped reading the thread when KOM posted twice that the subject was tabled for six months to a year?

Lastly, might i ask who are you?

Forum name is ulmont, real name is Richard Campbell, birthday is May 26, 1977, location is Atlanta, Georgia, USA, as is all obvious from my posts and public profile.

Are you playing the game?

Not as long as you're playing the game, I'm not.

No? If not, then what are you doing here?

Right now, I'm calling you a liar for your posts in this thread, and saying that you are misrepresenting what was obvious to any reader of the other thread: the subject of EU2 vs. EU3 for the conversion game was not decided.

More generally, I'm seeing if you ever quit this game, so that I might consider playing.

 

[FinnN]

Well originally I would have said EU2, but I'm coming around to the idea of EU3 with NA and (maybe) the Magna Mundi Gold mod. I don't have NA, but I'd get it if needed when the time comes. The reason I say this is that some nations get way, way more events in EU2 than others and are thus at an advantage. I think EU3 is a bit generic, but from what I read in the forums MMG and NA bring it a bit more to life and (probably) make it a bit fairer. So happy with either, but would prefer EU3.

Have fun
Finn

 

[BurningEGO]

Right now, I'm calling you a liar for your posts in this thread

I believe that posting in a thread of a game you are not even playing, just to call me a liar, or offend my person in other words, is forum breaking. I kindly ask you to stop before i call a moderator in.

Besides i dont see the point where i lied. KOM's posts prove what i said.

Oh and BTW, since you are 30 years old (like you stated), i will do you a favour and tell you a secret, so that you will not have to keep watching the thread and thus waste your time (i believe a 30 years old man has more to do then sit down watching 1500 posts in a row to see when someone said something) - i am not leaving the game. Unless i loose every king title, every duke title and every county, and even so i would join as another nation.

 

[tombom]

Don't you think it's somewhat impolite to come into a thread about converting a multiplayer game you're not part of - something that will be a while off anyway - just to start a fight with somebody you want to leave said game so you can play?

 

[BurningEGO]

Well originally I would have said EU2, but I'm coming around to the idea of EU3 with NA and (maybe) the Magna Mundi Gold mod. I don't have NA, but I'd get it if needed when the time comes. The reason I say this is that some nations get way, way more events in EU2 than others and are thus at an advantage. I think EU3 is a bit generic, but from what I read in the forums MMG and NA bring it a bit more to life and (probably) make it a bit fairer. So happy with either, but would prefer EU3.

Have fun
Finn

Eh, i believe you arent properly informed.

First, if we went to EU2, i am sure historical events, leaders and such would be disabled. This is an ahistorical game after all, and we would go with random stuff (leaders generated by a random leader generator, monarchs with KOM's converter, etc). So it will be fair for everyone.

As for EU3, i do not know, but i believe we cant use MMG mod. Isnt that the mod that tries to make EU3 historical plausible? This is an ahistorical game after all and as i stated we would go with random stuff. At least it was the way MTT was handled, and i believe this will go the same way. I believe KOM said somewhere that historical stuff would be disabled in any conversion.

 

[ulmont]

I believe that posting in a thread of a game you are not even playing, just to call me a liar, or offend my person in other words, is forum breaking.

I believe that correcting your misrepresentations of the posts in the other thread is not forum breaking. If your posts are so obviously contradicted by other posts in the thread that the contradictions are obvious to another reader, I can post that. If you disagree, report me to a moderator.

Besides i dont see the point where i lied. KOM's posts prove what i said.

You read posts saying that the topic will not be settled for six months to a year and take them to mean the topic is settled now?

(i believe a 30 years old man has more to do then sit down watching 1500 posts in a row to see when someone said something)

You never read AARs?

 

[Sid Meier]

Firstly I must settle a misunderstanding once and for all:

There will be NO HISTORICAL EVENTS if its EU2 as were playing completely ahistorically. There will be some edits done at the beginning according to some event related issue (like tech groups) but only random events will be used.

Also the EU2 vs EU3 was never settled we decided to postpone it until we actually meet 2 requirements: 1) a working converter, 2) the CK era finished.

So for now while discussion of whether to go eu2/eu3 is acceptable in this thread it will not be settled until theres a converter.

Having a converter doesn't gaurantee were going to go EU3 ego as I said I personally prefer EU2 but I want as a matter of principle have the options open.

This is a flagship campaign for the relevent Pdox titles, using their latest games/expansions/boosters help advertise their new titles and get more players.

 

[ulmont]

Don't you think it's somewhat impolite to come into a thread about converting a multiplayer game you're not part of - something that will be a while off anyway - just to start a fight with somebody you want to leave said game so you can play?

I read the main TWBW thread and the related conversion thread because the TWBW game is the only active multiplayer game. Originally I was interested in playing or subbing; now I read it more as an AAR.

I posted in this conversion thread because I believe that BurningEGO seriously misrepresented what was said in the main TWBW thread, and I posted links to KOM posts that support what I said. If any of the other players had said anything so obviously false by reference to posts I have read, I would have responded to them as well.

I assure you, I did not and do not expect BurningEGO to leave the TWBW game.

 

[Sid Meier]

Also if we use EU3 route, there will also be no historical events, that option will not be used.

 

[Sid Meier]

ulmost the session after this one can you sub for Muscovy if Im not there? I suspect I may be late.

 

[FinnN]

OK, with no historical events I'd almost certainly go for EU3 then.

Have fun
Finn