What I emboldened is what Paradox has always done. EU3 hasn't crashed yet on my computer. EU2 didn't even save out of the box.
Sadly its true that with the current state of PC games a release that doesn't crash out of the box is considered a success, so I'll reluctantly give Paradox props for at least giving us a stable product. But I still feel like that's patting a kid on the head for not missing the toilet when he takes a piss. Stability and a lack of major bugs should be a given, but of course we know it isn't. Not for any PC game.
Check out Stonewall's Historical Realism Project; there's a link in my signature. See if you can help them to work with the EU3 AI to get them to do what you want them to do.
I'll definately give it a look, thanks.
I don't need reminders that I'm playing England. I knew that already. What is going to make you feel like you're playing the country you're playing?
First, the historical events might help. I think they add a uniqueness and flavor to each individual nations. They don't have to be inevitable or game breaking, but a certain, broad sequence of events perhaps leading to the more likely historical events for that region, and perhaps a narrower set of events/decisions that lead 'possibly' to the less likely events that really happened. Also wouldn't mind having semi-scripted generals and monarchs. They don't have to die at the same time, but perhaps a semi-maintainence of plausible family trees branching from the starting point that at least gives you the chance of getting a Queen Elizabeth, or at least maintains names consistant with (or persons actually existing) in the present royal line and maybe a short description of who they are, how they got there, how they're related...rather than just names and stats. And historical generals popping up (infrequently and typically only the better ones so that it doesn't elminate the use of the 'buy a general' mechanism) based on who owns the territory where said person was born. (although that might make the larger empires unstoppable, and I think I heard that portion is hardcoded anyway).
In either case, something more than just the base factors. War of the Roses doesn't have to happen, but at least let that possibility be there. Perhaps a sequence of non-random pop up decisions which may lead to it or avoid it, or a set of parameters which do the same. Or hell, at the very least, make some stuff up. Give it an interesting description and background, rather than the same repeating generic random events with minor consequences. Secession wars, civil wars, internal strife, fracturing of large empires...these weren't terribly uncommon for alot of the big boys. They're more often the reason for the collapse of the larger Mongol-leftover empires than being chipped away by rivals, yet there's nothing I've seen that comes close to that level of consequences. If you start big, you've got to really screw up to hit a civil war or fracturing of the state.
Happened in EUII. Sucked there. Only seen it once in EUIII. Huron inherited the Iroquois.
Not as often nor as seemingly random. Sure alot of the Austrian inheretances in real history weren't exactly the most likely of outcomes, but some of them in EU3 simply defy logic. And in most cases of inheritance, the larger power typically absorbs the lesser one. Nor does such a thing inevitably lead to a true inheritance at all. As a gameplay issue, I think it happens too often, offers huge rewards for minimal effort, is unbalancing, and has few real consequences. As a historical issue, I think often occurs between states with absolutely minimal historical relationships and are unlikely to the point of (nearly) impossible.
Or maybe it was nearly as random as the real historical inheritances and myself and others just can't see them as such. Kind of like watching a sports movie where the grossly overmatched good guys come back at the absolute last second, score the winning touchdown, and win the game. Or the military good guys overcome overwhelming 10-1 odds and win the battle. If it was a story, we'd all roll our eyes and offer a 'yeah, right' to the contrived, feel good scenario. If it was based on a true story, we'd give it alot more credibility because hey, unlikely things do happen in history and those events are the ones that get turned into major stories.
I'm rambling here, so I'll cut it off.
o
