^ If you could share this with me too. I think I remember something like this my dad had, but the game is lost and the name excapes me.
This Game is Boring the Hell Out of Me
- Thread starter unmerged(371738)
- Start date
-
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.
It will sound pretty funny, but I started playing World of Tanks and I have to admit I'm loving it although it's not my type of game. Maby it could be a good substitute for EU3 for few months of time untill you start missing EU3 again. 
Last edited:
Hey! I play WoT, too!
by the way : that game with orders going missing and stuff : Was that a boardgame?
by the way : that game with orders going missing and stuff : Was that a boardgame?
I don't know if this is the game he is referring to, but "Waterloo" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_(video_game) fits the description. A first person commander game. Pretty awesome then and cannot think why it wouldnt work nowadays.
I have to admit, I cant see the logic behind lower tech groups having worse units than Westerners when at the same tech level. Surely a unit of Indians with the exact same equipment, training and organization will be equal to Europeans?
The game is Take Command: 2nd Manassas. Great game, if you're into Civil War stuff.
Like an earlier poster who mentioned his disappointment, I just got the "Complete" game before the weekend, and in just 2 days I'm already disturbed by the lack of differentiation between the various non-European countries. Until you Westernize, there's essentially nothing worth doing. No matter how much you focus your research and pick Advisors to quadruple it in a particular field, you're looking at 50-200 years to develop another tech level, just to get something like a 1% increase in effectiveness. That's a LONG time doing nothing, or at least nothing much. There may be a few exceptions, but I haven't played it long enough to find them.
The other thing that really annoys me is the "random mission" thing. You get assigned a mission, whether it makes any sense or not, and you can't abandon it without taking a major hit in prestige, and indirectly to your stability, political clout, and everything else. The LAST thing I want to do is get in a financially ruinous ship-building "pissing contest" against a nearby dedicated naval power when I've got an abundance of land threats breathing down my neck, or to forge a Marriage arrangement with a small state that I'm expecting to invade and vassalize within the next year. Waiting half the game until you can do some of them just leaves you decades behind in rank and political clout (while other countries around you do stuff like "Improve Relations" for quick and easy points). I'd like to see a LIST of at least 3 different "goals" that you can choose from. Having at least 1 of them replace itself every year (unless you accept it) would allow you to just ignore them for a while in the event that all three are: "Gain access to the sea" when you're a trivial minor being blocked by a major power, or some other virtually impossible task.
The choices of Advisors randomly goes from stuff like 3 Fortification Engineers for a culture that can't even build forts (a 40% increase in Nothing is still Nothing), to nearly 20 different choices, and I'm sorely tempted to restart over and over until I get at least 1 or 2 that actually DO something relevant. With the smaller countries, the Advisors totally trump the research abilities of the whole country, while for a large nation a lot of them are almost irrelevant. Getting +3 to a tech that you're already dumping 12 points into is a lot less critical than those same 3 points when your research is at 0.5 points. Besides, even the best Advisor is meaningless when you need 133,592 points to advance even a single tech a level. I recall getting a +6 Advisor for a native American tribe, plus maxxing out the one slider, and the completion date was still late in the 23rd Century. "Irrelevant" is the word that comes to mind.
After the depth of Vicky2, the rather "cartoonish" portrayal of most of the world in EU3 comes as a rude surprise. Sadly, I prefer this time period over the 18th Century, but will likely switch back to playing Vicky2 or HOI3 (with its sorry excuse for a war in the Pacific) after I fumble around with this a bit more.
The other thing that really annoys me is the "random mission" thing. You get assigned a mission, whether it makes any sense or not, and you can't abandon it without taking a major hit in prestige, and indirectly to your stability, political clout, and everything else. The LAST thing I want to do is get in a financially ruinous ship-building "pissing contest" against a nearby dedicated naval power when I've got an abundance of land threats breathing down my neck, or to forge a Marriage arrangement with a small state that I'm expecting to invade and vassalize within the next year. Waiting half the game until you can do some of them just leaves you decades behind in rank and political clout (while other countries around you do stuff like "Improve Relations" for quick and easy points). I'd like to see a LIST of at least 3 different "goals" that you can choose from. Having at least 1 of them replace itself every year (unless you accept it) would allow you to just ignore them for a while in the event that all three are: "Gain access to the sea" when you're a trivial minor being blocked by a major power, or some other virtually impossible task.
The choices of Advisors randomly goes from stuff like 3 Fortification Engineers for a culture that can't even build forts (a 40% increase in Nothing is still Nothing), to nearly 20 different choices, and I'm sorely tempted to restart over and over until I get at least 1 or 2 that actually DO something relevant. With the smaller countries, the Advisors totally trump the research abilities of the whole country, while for a large nation a lot of them are almost irrelevant. Getting +3 to a tech that you're already dumping 12 points into is a lot less critical than those same 3 points when your research is at 0.5 points. Besides, even the best Advisor is meaningless when you need 133,592 points to advance even a single tech a level. I recall getting a +6 Advisor for a native American tribe, plus maxxing out the one slider, and the completion date was still late in the 23rd Century. "Irrelevant" is the word that comes to mind.
After the depth of Vicky2, the rather "cartoonish" portrayal of most of the world in EU3 comes as a rude surprise. Sadly, I prefer this time period over the 18th Century, but will likely switch back to playing Vicky2 or HOI3 (with its sorry excuse for a war in the Pacific) after I fumble around with this a bit more.
You get a -5 Prestige hit for cancelling missions. That's not a "major hit", it's barely a blip. Only in the very rarest of circumstances have did I ever not cancel a mission because of the Prestige hit.
Firstly I would recommend the HTTT expansion. That one was definitely the best one so far. And secondly I think outside europe is not a good place for starting players. Europe is the to learn the game and outside is for later (imho). Also cancelling a mission is just 5 prestige. Thats not a very serious hit.
HTTT also improves on the advisors thing. That was indeed rubbish before HTTT.
HTTT also improves on the advisors thing. That was indeed rubbish before HTTT.
My EU3 time line are from 2007-2011. Waiting for a new expansion or something else to play, aka CK2, etc.
Like the OP say EU3 easily gets boring. For me the most boring thing is that there are really no focus on the Monarch you are playing except 3 different skill and an heir. Monarchs should really dictate HOW you play your nation. For example a warmonger monarch might try to start a war and if you deny him (or in reality yourself) you take one step further to insanity. The more insane your monarchs gets the more decision he (you) takes without the player being able to do anything. Ofcourse there should be plenty of different traits and monarchs could have several of those. Hmm maybe I should make a mod.
Anyway the point was that I feel EU3 boring because there is to much sandbox... which make the game feel flavourless and actually way to nonrealistic.
Anyway the point was that I feel EU3 boring because there is to much sandbox... which make the game feel flavourless and actually way to nonrealistic.
Magna Mundi Platinum 2.
All countries are different as they start with 3 ideas and you shouldn't change them.
Made the game harder so you fight for survival not world domination.
All countries are different as they start with 3 ideas and you shouldn't change them.
Made the game harder so you fight for survival not world domination.
Pretty unlikely, since 5.1 is the final patch they plan to release, IIRC. Plus, I don't think the game would benefit much from a fifth expansion pack, it's really just time to move on.
Not a "major hit" unless you're less than a decade into the game, and a -5 would put you into the negative numbers. Not to say that it's insurmountable, but it's a rough start for a new player trying to figure out the game when all of your political offers are being rejected, your merchants are being kicked out of the trade centers faster than you can replace them, and both your prestige and stability are going negative. I did one cancellation, and it put half my country into rebellion, around mid-1400 (the year, not the century) before I had more than a couple of units built. Losing your capital to rebels is not conducive to "taking over the world", or at least maintaining control over a small chunk of it.
I don't know the exact correlation, but the times I've gotten a successful mission right at the start and raised my Prestige, the county remained stable. The times I couldn't, and prestige dropped, everything fell apart in a hurry.
You have other problems with how you're playing then, as prestige doesn't affect rebellions. You could have -100 prestige and have a completely stable country free of rebels -- also, canceling a mission definitely doesn't put your country into a state of anarchy.
Because they wouldn't have the exact same equipment and organization, even at the same tech level.
Personally for me it makes sense for at the same tech levels that lower tech groups get worse units, but why should the tech speed be slower? The units they get are already worse and in other areas they werent that far behind as in game. Also here you can take 10k of your european troops and beat their whole armies.. not really realistic.
Why? The tech costs for non-Western countries are actually worse because of the lower speed, so why should an Indian kingdom getting land tech 51 have inferior troops to Europeans at land tech 51 (for comparison, the Indian infantry unit type at 51 has a land morale of 8, whereas the Western unit type has a land morale of 18 at land tech 43 already)? The point of the lower tech speed for non-Westerners is that so they can't have the same level of tech that Europeans do, which is fine, but what Paradox has done is create a double penalty that gets quite severe the later in the game you get.
So unless you want to say that despite the same technology level non-Westerners are just too inherently stupid to have the same quality technology and in turn troops, I don't see how you can be OK with the current setup.
Why wouldnt they have the same quality equipment and organisation at the same level of development? Just becuase they were slower to reach those developments, doesnt necessarilly mean Country X is less developed than Country Y.