-
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.
General idea... any place not colonized at start of Victoria should be PTI.
Basically, I want less provinces in the boring parts of New World(Labrador, Amazonas, Patagonia, Rockies and NA deserts, and Yukon. Less in boring parts of the old world(inland Africa, inland Asia, esp. Siberia) Less provs in Australia and NZ.
I want more provinces in the fun parts of the world. Europe(esp. Balkans, Hungary, Poland, Holy Roman Empire and Italy), more provinces in the fun parts of the New World(Carribbean, eastern coast from New York to Buenos Aires), and fun parts of Asia(Levant, Asia Minor, India, coastal China and Japan), and perhaps a few more in African Mediterranean.
Basically, I want less provinces in the boring parts of New World(Labrador, Amazonas, Patagonia, Rockies and NA deserts, and Yukon. Less in boring parts of the old world(inland Africa, inland Asia, esp. Siberia) Less provs in Australia and NZ.
I want more provinces in the fun parts of the world. Europe(esp. Balkans, Hungary, Poland, Holy Roman Empire and Italy), more provinces in the fun parts of the New World(Carribbean, eastern coast from New York to Buenos Aires), and fun parts of Asia(Levant, Asia Minor, India, coastal China and Japan), and perhaps a few more in African Mediterranean.
Brownbeard said:
Nice idea (and yep, cutting provinces in Siberia is sensible, and Amazonas and Patagonia should go PTI anyway)
Johan said:
But then whats the point of claiming all these nations are playable if they are only meant to be speedbumps?
I say we get rid of everything but the HRE and Scandanavia. I mean, England, France and Spain are monolithic entities anyway, and we don't want to stir the hornet's nest by representing the Balkans. Russia's so cold it'll be under permenent PTI anyways. I'm pretty sure people only started to live there when central heating was invented in Soviet times.
.png){kind=avatar}
Because what developers intend and what players are capable of are frequently two very different things.
They are playable, even though they may be not so central in the developing interest?
Cakravarti said:
Because they are playable.
I think the reply was mostly to make it succintly clear the focus is on Europe.
That however doesn't make the rest unplayable.
I thought it was just to slam me because i posted that with big orange lettering.BiB said:
I'm seriously hoping that statement was meant as just an exageration and not that it is there real policy for outside europe otherwise EU3 will be quite bad.
I have a new map request:
Would it be possible to divide the lowcountries, the Swiss states, and Northern Italy into many more provinces to better acurately represent this period. For example: In 1630, French troops occupied the city of Pinerolo in Savoy to force the Duke to cooperate with Louis XIII and Richelieu, in EU2 this is impossible as Savoy is only two provinces. Also, Mantua is only one province while the castle of Casale in Western Mantua was very important to controlling the communication and trade routes between the Rhine and Lombardy. Also, the Valtelline valleys in Switzerland were very hotly contested, but in EU2 they are merely represented as part of one or two provinces. The lowcountries, especially Belgium and Luxembourg, need to have more provinces representing both the important cities and the hinterland. The cities should be separate from the countryside as the economy, religion, and politics of the cities were separate and distinctly different from those of the hinterland.
I guess what I am really arguing for is to make crucial battle grounds in Europe have more provinces to better simulate the Holy Roman Empire, the Wars of Religion, and the Thirty Years War.
Would it be possible to divide the lowcountries, the Swiss states, and Northern Italy into many more provinces to better acurately represent this period. For example: In 1630, French troops occupied the city of Pinerolo in Savoy to force the Duke to cooperate with Louis XIII and Richelieu, in EU2 this is impossible as Savoy is only two provinces. Also, Mantua is only one province while the castle of Casale in Western Mantua was very important to controlling the communication and trade routes between the Rhine and Lombardy. Also, the Valtelline valleys in Switzerland were very hotly contested, but in EU2 they are merely represented as part of one or two provinces. The lowcountries, especially Belgium and Luxembourg, need to have more provinces representing both the important cities and the hinterland. The cities should be separate from the countryside as the economy, religion, and politics of the cities were separate and distinctly different from those of the hinterland.
I guess what I am really arguing for is to make crucial battle grounds in Europe have more provinces to better simulate the Holy Roman Empire, the Wars of Religion, and the Thirty Years War.
Compared to EU1, no. But EU2 added a signifigant area to Asia, some to Africa and some to Americas (some of which for the latter it shouldn't have).Txini said:
However if there policy then is to basically mostly leave Asia at the status quo unless it directly affects europe, it will be worse in comparison of EU1 vs. EU2.
Jinnai said:I thought it was just to slam me because i posted that with big orange lettering.
I'm seriously hoping that statement was meant as just an exageration and not that it is there real policy for outside europe otherwise EU3 will be quite bad.
Well, it worked for EU2 and most people don't think of EU2 as bad.
As i said in the previous post, it was okay for EU2 because a lot was missing in the rest of the world. That isn't the case as much anymore. What's missing is the areas that indirectly affected europe, but sometimes in very important ways that are hard to portray if they're removed or dumbed down.BiB said:
Have you seen some version of EU3 that the rest of us haven't? Else this is either wild speculation or an observation related to changes made by one or more of the numerous public mod projects.Jinnai said:
Paradox has a fully developed GDD that they have worked on for a considerable period of time. They have game elements that are deesigned to work with one another in a particular way. Now this might or might not coincide with your vision of what the ideal game should be, but that isn't really an issue. Paradox will, at least, most likely give you the facility to mod mots of the stuff you want to mod to make it closer to the game you want. But if your agenda is to push hard for an Asia Universalis then get used to disappointment.
Jinnai said:
I'm afraid I missed the official statement that said Asia would be left at status quo compared to EU2, could you please be kind enough to direct me to it? Thanks in advance.