To all the harsh critics

[unmerged(59077)]

I think people complaining about pre-EU III games being deterministic have been playing different games than myself. Certainly there's enough ahistorical events in EUII to make it interesting; if no event were triggered simply by a date but would have complex conditions that would improve further still.

But that's not at all the case. I liked CK least of all the Paradox games despite the very fun dynastic aspect, precisely becasue it played like Total War. EU III promises to be Total War if the current AARs are anything to go by.

I want to be the agent of change in my history game. Let the world proceed as it did, with minor variations; just let me meddle with it. That's all. I don't want RISK.

 

[KingOfTheIsles]

How do you define historical flavour? Certainly EU3 has some, but not on the level of mods for EU2 such as AGCEEP. Perhaps the community has been spoiled somewhat by the dedication of the mod team behind that, and it's unfair to criticise the game until mods have had enough chance, like in EU2, to fully develop.
I think the event system is better (in most ways) than before, and a skilled mod team will create one to satisfy history fans, but right now playing EU3 feels like playing a more complicated version of Medieval:TW2. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your opinions, personally it's not the game I ideally wanted, but it is definitely a well-crafted game that I can change to fit my tastes.

Of course it's somewhat a moot point for me, with the intel chipset graphical issues anyway...

 

[unmerged(63726)]

Some of you guys are so ungrateful. I wish I had EUIII but I can't get it. If you "hate" the game so much return it to the shop and tell them to send it me.

 

[unmerged(25273)]

I love EU3 - not least because of the modability it offers

I really love EU3 (and even bought a new graphics card to run it).
1. historical events and plausibility
I love the way EU3 moved away from the "historical" events. What we deem historically plausible is influenced a lot by what we know did happen. Whether other courses of events are plausible is another matter. Imho the game is a lot more fun to play know even if the map looks more different from your history book after 200 years playing than EU2.
2. The Introduction of National Ideas, Governments, Advisors and the revision of Royal Marriages has very much enriched the game.
3. It is the most modable game I have come across. While you can easily change a vast number of things pretty easily in the text files and thus tune the game mechanisms to your taste (which you simply could not do in EU2 - all you had was country and event files but iirc no access to colonising chance, effects of monarchs abilities etc.)
While I feel that event scripting has become more difficult it seems to be more powerful as well.
We simply have to thank the developers for the opportunities they have given us to change the game towards our own individual taste.
From that angle I also have to say that I cannot understand most of the criticism I find in this forum. If you feel that the game lacks events now - wait and see.
Paradox have a tradition of improving their games through patches for free long after the release dates that I have not seen paralleled by any other game publisher (thank you again) and also there is a creative community that will provide an awful lot if you just allow a bit of time (the game is only out for some 3 weeks)

 

[Desertfox]

I think it is a classic clash between artistic and commercial interests.

When I noticed that the release date of EU3 was already known when it was still in beta test phase, I had a hunch that it might have been a rush job.

Of course the developers would have wanted to polish and repolish the product until it was perfect. And only then bring it out. But in a capitalistic society there is often a manager in charge of a company who needs to make money for the shareholders, and will bring out the product when it is good enough to sell, instead of perfect from an artist`s view. The fact that several things are not implemented (slave value) or broken (native Americans can get to a better tech group if they are Christian except that there is no way to become Christian) I suspect that somebody made a hard choice on which parts to finish and which parts to postpone to later, given limited time and development resources.

Of course doing so devalues your brand value but Paradox has a reputation (so far at least) for partially making up that flaw by bringing out patches later to finish the product, if it has sold well.

This setup does present extra work for the player modders who work to fix the worst broken events, and have to recheck or redo all of their work whenever there is a new patch out.

 

[Flooper X]

EU3 hasn't taken away the EU2 AGCEEP I like to play, so I suspect when I get a system that will support it I will enjoy both.

probably the best pointof this thread, If you don't like EU3, EU2 is still there.

If you think there sould be some control to make things historical, either
a) complain in a constructive way which some of you have done.
b) do a mod, it's very easy, especially if you want to make it historical and don't use the MTTH

Actually, EU3 isn't EU2 with 3d, and it's not supposed to be EU2 with 3d, because that would be pointless, it is a new game that will definately need some patching before it is really good, just like every other paradox game.
What it is NOT however, is a digital historical atlas, or a "a minute to learn" conquer the world strategy game

keep that in mind, and try to make the game better instead of just complaining agressively, as it hurts your cause more than it aids it.

(obviously, the criticism in this post is not directed at the people who complain constructively)

 

[Palle]

I think it is a classic clash between artistic and commercial interests.

When I noticed that the release date of EU3 was already known when it was still in beta test phase, I had a hunch that it might have been a rush job.

Of course the developers would have wanted to polish and repolish the product until it was perfect. And only then bring it out. But in a capitalistic society there is often a manager in charge of a company who needs to make money for the shareholders, and will bring out the product when it is good enough to sell, instead of perfect from an artist`s view. The fact that several things are not implemented (slave value) or broken (native Americans can get to a better tech group if they are Christian except that there is no way to become Christian) I suspect that somebody made a hard choice on which parts to finish and which parts to postpone to later, given limited time and development resources.

Of course doing so devalues your brand value but Paradox has a reputation (so far at least) for partially making up that flaw by bringing out patches later to finish the product, if it has sold well.

This setup does present extra work for the player modders who work to fix the worst broken events, and have to recheck or redo all of their work whenever there is a new patch out.

IMO it's great exagguration to say that EU3 is unfinished product that was rushed to market unfinished. The game is very stable, I haven't had a single CTD. I haven't tried Multiplayer but at least single player works fine. There are some balance issues and bugs, but absolutely nothing that would prevent enjoying the game. Most things that people refer to as bugs or "things need to be fixed" are just design decisions that these people are not happy with.

 

[iBaLkiD]

What are the odds of Mongols changing the social structure of Japan in a permanent manner?


Napoleon wouldn't have been so miserable when he hit 30. Apart from that, not a lot, and Alexander made a dramatic contribution to history. But tell me, if Alexander lived, died or sired 50 children, what difference would it have made as the Greek world was so soon to be incorporated into the Roman one?


What difference would it have made? Aside from the slim possibility of unconditional surrender slightly earlier than IRL. Perhaps the Iron Curtain is placed slightly East. In the end, what difference does even that mean given the temporal existence of Soviet communism?


Britain wouldn't have gone on an offensive in Libya. Nothing more, nothing less. Sealion has been done to death, and in no rational world does it depend on Dunkirk.

On the contrary, history is barely influenced by single events, battles or personalities. How different would Russia be today if Lenin died as a child? Would WW1 have not occurred without the assasination in Sarejevo? History is a tide, people are pebbles. It's very hard to find any lingering event which transformed history on it's own, and when they do occur (such as the month following Hastings in 1066) then they demonstrate that any number of similar events could have created the same outcome. Or do you believe that William was the only person on earth capable of rounding up a few thousand men and conquering a hollow kingdom?

Take the momentus events of the 20th century. Did the 1917 revolution or 1940 Fall of France change anything? Of course events following were influenced, but in the end France is still French and Russia is still Russia, the intermediate steps might have been altered, but the end result is unaffected because small, overrated events don't change the greater force of history which carries on regardless.

If Washington was a devout Tory, are you living in an English colony today?


Indeed, though quite what any of that has to do with the debate which splits scholars re historic randomness or patterns is beyond me. Aside from each "side" throwing random historic events around as "proof" of their position that is.


I agree, but do you think it's yours, mine or the milkman's place to say such a thing?

Im not going to get into the historical tit for tats, of which i disagree/agree with some of your points. Im at work.

To simplify things I will say that in my opinion people should educate themselves before they buy something. If a person was to just grab a game off the shelf, read the companies own lauding of said title, and buy it based up that. Then you get what you deserve.

I agree, but do you think it's yours, mine or the milkman's place to say such a thing?

I absolutely do. All i was asking people to be is more polite, and more subjective. People have been so harsh and rude. There is no place for that. If you wish to act like a fool i guess that is said person prerogative/right.

What are the odds of Mongols changing the social structure of Japan in a permanent manner?

100% absolutely positive that they would have changed Japan in a permanent manner, just as they have changed permanently every single culture that they have ever come into contact with.

http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780609610626

One of the best historic reads by one of the worlds most respected authority figures on the history of the mongols.

Indeed, though quite what any of that has to do with the debate which splits scholars re historic randomness or patterns is beyond me. Aside from each "side" throwing random historic events around as "proof" of their position that is.

If do not understand my examples under the context with which they were written(as a reply to someone's rationale) then you should reread the entire string of post's and replies. If you still do not get it then ask a friend to help you out if it means that much to you. Not trying to be a jerk but just because you do not understand something, or it is "beyond you" as you state does not make the subject matter invalid in any way. If i misunderstand you then i apologize in advance.

I do not have to time debate with you the rest of the historical points. They are valid examples and very logical within the context.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Eu3 is barely criticized compared to how vicky and hoi1 was. Then there was major mayhem. This is like a walk in the park compared to that. Apart from the mess up with MP the rest of the issues are not such that u cant play the game. Balance and design concept are always up to discussion.

 

[dtroiani]

Let's just remember that this is a friendly discussion of the game...

 

[unmerged(6310)]

And please don't read me out wrong, it doesn't have to happen exactly as real history did. But it should be plausible, and thereby feel believable. Just like you in a WWII game shouldn't have to move your troops just like they did in real life, I don't think any of us "historical game niche players" says that about EU either, even though some of the "free-form" players seems to say that that is what we want.

Define "plausible". I'm not trying to start an argument, but I see that word thrown around a lot with no explination of what "plausible" would be in a game that's a simplified version of real life?

Is it plausible for me as Japan to be waging war with Ming for 70 years and pretty much holding my own against the largest Asian power? Is it plausible for Mongolia to be destroyed by Ming in 30 days? Is it plausible for me if I were Ming to take over all these puny little countries with my economic and military might? Or even better, take Japan, and then become a coloniel power itself? Would it be plausible for Portugal to take their economic power and feed it to the war machine and start to take Iberia for itself?

Who gets to make the decision of what is or isn't plausible? Reading the various threads show me several people with several ideas on it. How are the game creators supposed to mesh all those into one single game?

 

[Merrivale]

On the contrary, history is barely influenced by single events, battles or personalities. How different would Russia be today if Lenin died as a child? Would WW1 have not occurred without the assasination in Sarejevo? History is a tide, people are pebbles. It's very hard to find any lingering event which transformed history on it's own, and when they do occur (such as the month following Hastings in 1066) then they demonstrate that any number of similar events could have created the same outcome. Or do you believe that William was the only person on earth capable of rounding up a few thousand men and conquering a hollow kingdom?

Take the momentus events of the 20th century. Did the 1917 revolution or 1940 Fall of France change anything? Of course events following were influenced, but in the end France is still French and Russia is still Russia, the intermediate steps might have been altered, but the end result is unaffected because small, overrated events don't change the greater force of history which carries on regardless.

We're in danger of veering OT, but I tend to believe that too many people either: put too much stock in "great man history" or dismiss it too much. If you want an example of how much one person can change the course of world events, what would have happened if the Florida recount had continued and Al Gore been President? However you feel about George Bush, you know the US reaction to 9/11 would have been different and Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in power in Iraq. That kind of difference can have far-reaching consequences.

Here's a good Revolutionary War what-if. What if there was no heavy fog after the Battle of Long Island and the Continental Army was entirely destroyed? Would the war have continued and the US still won? I think it's a harder question that it may appear. To your point about Hitler and Lenin, millions of people who died may not have had the what-ifs come about. The world map may not be very different, but that is only the beginning of the story not the end.

Of course the answer in the end is WE DON'T KNOW. It's easy to say that of course things would have been different when in fact they may not have been. It's just as easy to say that of course nothing substantial would have changed when it fact it may have. There are too many complex interactions between people that determine outcomes to be able to go back and say "If X did not exist/become powerful Y would not have happened" and to say "Even if X did not exist/become powerful Y would have still happened."

For game-play purposes, I think it's more fun to play with what-ifs that change history, but that doesn't mean they necessarily would have.

 

[Merrivale]

I think people complaining about pre-EU III games being deterministic have been playing different games than myself. Certainly there's enough ahistorical events in EUII to make it interesting; if no event were triggered simply by a date but would have complex conditions that would improve further still.

But that's not at all the case. I liked CK least of all the Paradox games despite the very fun dynastic aspect, precisely becasue it played like Total War. EU III promises to be Total War if the current AARs are anything to go by.

I want to be the agent of change in my history game. Let the world proceed as it did, with minor variations; just let me meddle with it. That's all. I don't want RISK.

This, I think, is the true source of tension between the "two camps." One camp wants to be the sole large agent of historical change as the player while the AI sticks somewhat closely to history (not exactly, this camp still wants surprises, they just don't want too many). The effect is one of changing history yourself as the rest of the world unfolds pretty closely to how it did the past.

The other "camp" wants the AI to behave like a player. Which means it has to disregard what happened in history and act in its best interests. This may make for a more entertaining game, but does lessen the "personally changing history" aspect. I also believe from what I've read around here that this camp wants more historical "atmosphere" than currently exists in the game, so they aren't totally happy.

I don't think you can say that one is "better" than the other, they are just different. It's clear that: EU2 was more like the sticking to history camp, and the Paradox chose to go the other direction with EU3.

(Oh, and for those saying that EU3 is somehow a "betrayal" of the EU lineage, did you play EU1? No historical events in that game. . .)

 

[Johan]

Eu3 is barely criticized compared to how vicky and hoi1 was. Then there was major mayhem. This is like a walk in the park compared to that. Apart from the mess up with MP the rest of the issues are not such that u cant play the game. Balance and design concept are always up to discussion.

Perhaps the truest post in a long while.

 

[unmerged(4444)]

This, I think, is the true source of tension between the "two camps." One camp wants to be the sole large agent of historical change as the player while the AI sticks somewhat closely to history (not exactly, this camp still wants surprises, they just don't want too many). The effect is one of changing history yourself as the rest of the world unfolds pretty closely to how it did the past.

The other "camp" wants the AI to behave like a player. Which means it has to disregard what happened in history and act in its best interests. This may make for a more entertaining game, but does lessen the "personally changing history" aspect. I also believe from what I've read around here that this camp wants more historical "atmosphere" than currently exists in the game, so they aren't totally happy.

I don't think you can say that one is "better" than the other, they are just different. It's clear that: EU2 was more like the sticking to history camp, and the Paradox chose to go the other direction with EU3.

(Oh, and for those saying that EU3 is somehow a "betrayal" of the EU lineage, did you play EU1? No historical events in that game. . .)

I think this is a pretty good assessment. As for EU1, yes it had no historical events (aside from the Reformation and I think the ToT), but the AI was at least directed to act fairly historically. Brandenburg did not establish a colonial empire by 1500 in EU1.

 

[MacGregor]

I think this is a pretty good assessment. As for EU1, yes it had no historical events (aside from the Reformation and I think the ToT), but the AI was at least directed to act fairly historically. Brandenburg did not establish a colonial empire by 1500 in EU1.

It also had historical leaders and monarchs. Those people who sat III is the same as I are pretty much off base as far as I can see. Anyway, I prefer II to them both.

 

[Montague68]

This, I think, is the true source of tension between the "two camps." One camp wants to be the sole large agent of historical change as the player while the AI sticks somewhat closely to history (not exactly, this camp still wants surprises, they just don't want too many). The effect is one of changing history yourself as the rest of the world unfolds pretty closely to how it did the past.

The other "camp" wants the AI to behave like a player. Which means it has to disregard what happened in history and act in its best interests. This may make for a more entertaining game, but does lessen the "personally changing history" aspect. I also believe from what I've read around here that this camp wants more historical "atmosphere" than currently exists in the game, so they aren't totally happy.

Bingo. If I'm going to play a colonization game, I don't want to know ahead of time I'm always going to be competing with Spain and Portugal. If I'm in central Europe, I don't want to know ahead of time that the Reformation is always going to wreck things up in a set certain way.

That being said, if PI (or modders) can increase the "historicalness" or the historic immersion without making the AI predictable, I'm all for it.

 

[unmerged(65737)]

It is very difficult to decide on buying a game based on reviews. They are always good, because the reviewers want to continue getting preview copies. I swear, a horrible game reviews at 90% and a great game reviews at 98%. It is near worthless to read them.

The best way to evaluate a game is to wait for the demo to come out. And since paradox has released a demo, there really shouldn't be any "I want my money back" posts.

 

[Merrivale]

It also had historical leaders and monarchs. Those people who sat III is the same as I are pretty much off base as far as I can see. Anyway, I prefer II to them both.

Not saying they are the same, just that to claim EU3 is some wildly different version of EU is a little off-base, IMHO.

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

First I would like to say that i am for context driven events, I was a member of the ahistorical assosciation when it was around, and liked CK and understod that it’s shortcomings to a very large degree was the fault of Snowball the russian producers.

I would also like to state that I’m for the switch to 3D graphics, and think that the interface is wastly improved over earlier titles especially the outliner, but i have some grievances and i can understand others.

Paradox has made an attemt to change from a small niche producing company with a tolerant fanbase that don’t mind waiting for the patches, and the modding community to make it an enjoyable experience to a large mainstream gameproducer trying to compete with games such as civ and aoe. This can be seen in the expansion of the marketing division (opening new york office, getting proffesionel personel), making CE’s, and incresing their prices (33% in Denmark) wich makes their games more expensive than games such as fm, civ4 etc. in many of the larger stores. Also the less frequent patches can be seen as an idicator of this, as it was argued that it would deminish the trust of the company in the eyes of potential customers and internet sites that should mirror the patchs. All this is fine with me. It’s only natural that a company grows and tries to expand it’s customerbase and revenues – BUT then as a consumer it’s then fair to expect that the game is “finished”, that is wellbalanced, and that it’s gamemechanics is working. It is no longer enough that the game is “stable” ie. Dosn’t crash. As of now some of the gamemechanics dosn’t work proporly. Examples such as selling provinces, exploration (both explorationtime and the fact that autorefill of troops makes exploring armys more or less imortal), and less pressing but still annoying things like uenending alliances, minors committing suicieds etc.
I for one has faith that these things will be adressed by paradox, but with the new line that the company has taken it is fair to expect that a lot of customers will fell burned by this experince and not support paradox next time they produce a game. Excuses such as “it the first game with at new engine”, “you can mod it so it fits your desire”, or “give the modding community/paradox time at it will be very good” just dosn’t cut it with newcommers.
What has dissapointet me, is that we were led to belive (or maby i was just misunderstanding, if thats the case then im sorry for this) that the new “dynamic” engine was superior to the old “deterministic” engine when it came to simulate events. I have found the engine very lacking in that respect, personal unions are good for nothing and can’t simulate unions such as the kalmar union, heavy colonising by england in south america still sends all trade to andalusia and not london. Everyone and their mother colonises america, even nations that never have acces to the atlantic. The ai is generic and has no understanding of spheres of interest or a more stern focus in one direction but willy nilly goes all ways at once and is generally plain feeble, on VH in my first full game as Granada i’ve counqered most of europe, north africa and the middle east.. These points has been argued better by others in this thread by others so i’ll just agree with them and let i be.
To people who argues “you could have read the forum of played the demo”, I’ve been on the forum almost daily, and played the demo, wich showed a great interface, but was said to be missing alot of files such as the ai, so it’s hard to judge on the face of it.
What has dissapointet me the most though, and this is subjetive as hell, is the loss of atmosphere. The 15th century dosn’t feel any different than the 18th. The “unic” uniforms for each country is nothing but a diffrent colorscheme, the new music (good gamemusic though it is) has replaced the former periodical music, the advisors isn’t in their specific periode but spread out, and the lack of any “contextual” historical events, for me makes the game boring even if it is stable.

Just my two cents – i’ll not be comming back to discuss it as i don’t think it will lead anywere – people, including paradox, seems to have made up their mind and no arguments will likely change anyones mind. I’ll still lurk, and wait for the pathces and mods to see if it makes it more interesting for me...