To all the harsh critics

[Sarmatia1871]

This same argument comes up in Victoria.

In Victoria, the AI can easily turn Russia into the world's leading industrial power. Why? Because the AI is better at running Russia than the Czars were. While this is humorous for a variety of reasons (imagine the Romanovs' all spinning in their graves because Swedish programmers made an AI that was smarter than some of them!) it does cause "historical plausibility" problems. Should you use events to "dumb down" Russia to keep it plausible? Should you redo Russia's AI so that it plays like the game more like it's historical counterparts (and thus does silly things like not invest in education or industry)? If you do so, does that mean human players will just walk all over the Russian bear because they know it will face extra problems?

The problem with Russian industrialization in Victoria is actually exactly the same as the problem with Russian New World colonization in EU3 - in Victoria the game engine doesn't model the structural reasons why Russian industrialization proved so difficult in the 19th century, and in EU3 it doesn't place any meaningful restrictions on Russian overseas colonies, restrictions which certainly existed in real life.

It's not a question of the AI being cleverer than "real" historical actors, but because the historic difficulties which affected these countries in real life don't exist in the game.

 

[Arilou]

Hmm..sounds like there is some game balance/mechanics problems getting in the way as well?

For example, the factors that make Russia colonizing on the eastern coast of what is now the U.S. not being there (attrition/cost of ships for Russia/colonization time and chance for such a long trip, etc) not being in place - making it too good of a choice for the AI to ignore?

In that case, would some of the issues with the AI doing things too far off of history be because the scenarios (and other factors like infantry's early ineptitude) aren't set up quite as historically as needed at the moment?

Definately.

Or rather, the game does not take several factors into account that constrained the actual leaders of said states.

 

[durecellrabbit]

Without these things, without the historical *context* what exactly makes playing "Sweden" different from playing "OUter Kewjonida"?

Sweden is a real country?

 

[Arilou]

Sweden is a real country?

Again, without the historical context, how is it, except for the name, in any sense Sweden?

 

[saintsup]

The problem is that they would have needed plausible reasons to do so.

For one thing, access to the Ocean. You can't colonize America from Arkhangelsk. They would have to have conquered Sweden+Norway or broken through the Sound somehow. or gotten all the way to east asia already (in which case the west coast is more plausible) or conquered their way down to Persia.

The problem isn't with that kind of behaviour per-se, it is that the game is completely incapable of modelling the kind of factors that were very significant in national policy-making, so yes, in that sense AI-files (which, as said, are more important than events, to me anyway) are a "crutch".

Because Paradox can't make a game as complex as life.

My opinion exactly but a lot better said

 

[Gaute65]

I'm curious, was there this much criticism of the previous Paradox games when they came out?

EU2, HOI1, VIC and CK had more criticism when they came out. They all had more bugs, was unbalanced and had more ctd than EU3.

Is EU3 a perfect game? Of course not.

EU3 needs more events and game balancing.

 

[MacGregor]

Ah, so you want to play EUII then.

The question isn't wanting to play EUII. It's wanting a better version of EUII. This game appears to be a version of Civ 1 and 1/2 (with obvious differences, they are similar in lack of feel though; just games, not true historically based games). Completely vanilla feel to it, and a definite step backwards in relying on one overarching AI for computer nations rather than allowing for independent country AIs(which means they all act alike in like circumstances). That to me is the biggest weakness and part of the reason things get so maddingly unrecognizable as anything remotely plausible in a short period of time.

 

[durecellrabbit]

Again, without the historical context, how is it, except for the name, in any sense Sweden?

You get the Swedish flag, correct geographical position, correct stuff on starting and the same enemies Sweden had although not for long. I do understand what you mean even if it does not bother me as much, I was just checking Outer Kewjonida was in fact made up .

 

[unmerged(56602)]

Again, without the historical context, how is it, except for the name, in any sense Sweden?

Great point.... it seems what the devs have done is thrown all the fixed events out the window (good riddance!) along with all the other trappings of actual history save the flags and starting locations (umm... what?) and failed to put in any contextual events or other historical flavor. (Now I'm mad.) What we're left with is an uglier, more complex, and less replayable game than, say, CivIV... where every faction is the same every time, balance be damned in this new counter-historical, so-called dynamic world. (What's dynamic about big, European powers becoming giant blobs that rule the world?)

I own all the previous Paradox games because I like history... if the conditions are right to add some flavor, do it! I repeat... if the conditions are right. I don't want the Portuguese to get Macao for free, or North America doomed to rebel if colonized by the British, and so on. But events can be dynamic.

And it should be noted that I love Crusader Kings, even though it's the crazy counter-historical Paradox game. Why, because it has character. EUIII lacks that.

 

[saintsup]

This same argument comes up in Victoria.

This whole same thread came up in every Pdx game release since EUII. Makes me feel sooo old

 

[Montague68]

Definately.

Or rather, the game does not take several factors into account that constrained the actual leaders of said states.

I submit that if every constraint that faced real-life leaders back then were taken into account, there would be maybe three or four nations worth playing in the game. May as well not even add multiplayer to the game at that point.

 

[unmerged(6310)]

where every faction is the same every time, balance be damned in this new counter-historical, so-called dynamic world. (What's dynamic about big, European powers becoming giant blobs that rule the world?)

I don't think every faction is the same. Playing as Mongolia and as Japan are NOT the same experience, at least not for me.

Japan, I stand a chance. Mongolia - I'm lucky to make it to Summer 1453.

 

[MacGregor]

I submit that if every constraint that faced real-life leaders back then were taken into account, there would be maybe three or four nations worth playing in the game. May as well not even add multiplayer to the game at that point.

Well, that's an impossibility to begin with. Everything that went into decisions is not even known, much less can it be moddable. However, it can be done better than it is now in the EUIII engine. It apparantly doesn't feel like a Paradox game. I know there were real issues with both HOI and Vicky when they came out, but they at least felt like Paradox games. This, more like Risk with really, really small countries.

 

[Faeelin]

Again, without the historical context, how is it, except for the name, in any sense Sweden?

If there's no historical context, then the best comparison for this game is the Civ series.

Which is, most would agree, far more fun. q

 

[unmerged(503)]

some of you have way too much time on your hands, I dont waste a fraction of the time some of you all do composing and drafting comments here, with my clients. at any rate hasnt this all be hashed out in other threads ad nasium? let it rest...you like it bravo, you dont "weeps in sympathy". the points for arguements on the focus on EU should have been done long ago by you infinity posters, if you didnt know the game nature, with all the time you all spend posting here, from the devs before release, shame on you.

also if 150000+ of these games sold, the infinity posters here are simply a very minor fraction of the game fan base. clearly many people have bought it that dont even bother to post here. in conclusion, next time make a poll, those of you who invest so much time here, even doing some of the work for paradox from what I can see with research etc...and petition paradox to make "the game you want" be simple that way huh

 

[Modestus]

The idea of re-writing history from the start is a strange idea anyhow for EU, the game had its foundation in historical facts, your armies are comprised of and progress to being units that are again based on historical facts however none of the countries are behaving like they care and I suppose thats the idea they don't care.

I am now playing against an AI that seems to have a similar desire to mine, to eat up other countries. At least in EU2 I had to pick my way through historical events and avoid giving the impression that I was in fact a greedy bastard. Playing EU3 everybody seems to be too busy in the pig trough to notice me. I suppose we will all end up squabbling over the last bit of meat.

Surly it is more sensible to have the single player challenged by the whole history of the game then having an AI that behaves like the player.

 

[unmerged(26245)]

If there's no historical context, then the best comparison for this game is the Civ series.

Which is, most would agree, far more fun. q

One of the best arguments that I`ve ever heard. If I had known that EU3 would just throw away all of it`s uniqueness in strategy gaming and become a bad version of civilization, I`d never buy it. And trying to play and enjoy eu3 because I had so much anticipation after Eu2, I`m really disappointed. The feeling of a unique and fun strategy game with historical references is gone. I`m about to go back to CIV 4 mods, or Eu2. Because this game was absolutely rubbish. Some friends of mine and I used to play Eu2 in LAN, and later we have also played CIV4 fall from heaven mod and football manager, of course, but we really anticipated Eu3. And then Eu3 turns out to be a fantasy game with no historic interest, and in addition to abandoning everything that used to make paradox games fun, it`s not competitive in either graphics or anything else. We played Eu3 in LAN for approx. 2 hours (no ctds btw, and then we were fed up) So Eu3 have turned out to be an "alpha version of civ, whom is so bad that they did not dare to let the public try it".

If I could register Eu1 and Eu2, I have both and would register them. And also, I`d rather play any of them than Eu3, as both Eu1 and Eu2 are better games than Eu3.

 

[iBaLkiD]

One of the best arguments that I`ve ever heard. If I had known that EU3 would just throw away all of it`s uniqueness in strategy gaming and become a bad version of civilization, I`d never buy it. And trying to play and enjoy eu3 because I had so much anticipation after Eu2, I`m really disappointed. The feeling of a unique and fun strategy game with historical references is gone. I`m about to go back to CIV 4 mods, or Eu2. Because this game was absolutely rubbish. Some friends of mine and I used to play Eu2 in LAN, and later we have also played CIV4 fall from heaven mod and football manager, of course, but we really anticipated Eu3. And then Eu3 turns out to be a fantasy game with no historic interest, and in addition to abandoning everything that used to make paradox games fun, it`s not competitive in either graphics or anything else. We played Eu3 in LAN for approx. 2 hours (no ctds btw, and then we were fed up) So Eu3 have turned out to be an "alpha version of civ, whom is so bad that they did not dare to let the public try it".

If I could register Eu1 and Eu2, I have both and would register them. And also, I`d rather play any of them than Eu3, as both Eu1 and Eu2 are better games than Eu3.

For your taste's, not others. A lot of people are really enamored with it. I have certain levels of disappointment as well but i am not giving up on EUIII just yet.

There was an extensive beta as well as a demo so i do not understand your following comment...

So Eu3 have turned out to be an "alpha version of civ, whom is so bad that they did not dare to let the public try it".

Huh?

 

[minority]

If there's no historical context, then the best comparison for this game is the Civ series.

Which is, most would agree, far more fun. q

I disagree that there's no historical context. There's geography, religion and cultures to affect that. Context wise, this is far from Civ.

As for those criticisms about vanilla EU3, I can only say, give modding a chance.

cheers

 

[unmerged(26245)]

For your taste's, not others. A lot of people are really enamored with it. I have certain levels of disappointment as well but i am not giving up on EUIII just yet.

There was an extensive beta as well as a demo so i do not understand your following comment...



Huh?

Maybe I didn`t express myself in a good way, but this game has turned into CIV or some other "fantasy" game, except that you can not choose a random map or anything which ought to be natural to a game that has no connection to "real-life" or history. And soforth, Eu3 is a lousy game. It is a fantasy setting with just one scenario, and no option to make a random scenario. For me, this does not fit with EU. I loved EU for the uniqueness and historical accuracy. Now I regret that I bought Eu3 and did not settle for Eu1 and 2. If I could give it back and collect my money, I`d do so. And more important, if Paradox decides to make Eu4, I won`t buy it. I`d rather purchase CIV10 or something, because Eu without the unique historical feeling is nothing.