Too much?
- Thread starter Palaiologos
- 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.
As said before...
I think most of you people have misinterpreted what i wanted to say. Of course tooltips are useful and necessary.
I am not talking about getting info that will aid me in a decision. I am talking about the game actually pointing and guiding me to the decision. I think we should draw the line somewhere. By colour coding stuff (green is good , red is bad) EVERYWHERE[(this word is the key to my arguments),i mean the latest patch has even the army names go red if they exceed the supply limit] the player is left with little room to apply his own judgement, his own SKILL.
And yes experienced players should have an advantage over newer ones only because their experience makes them more SKILLFULL. Player SKILL is a combination of memory, judgement, ability.
I mean its enough having made clear to the player that there is a desirable cav/inf ratio to an army and it will affect combat perfomance if its not applied. There is absolutely no need to have cavalry go RED if it that ratio is not met. Same thing with the supply limit.
I am not saying the game is unplayable as it is BUT that i don't like the way things are going.
I think most of you people have misinterpreted what i wanted to say. Of course tooltips are useful and necessary.
I am not talking about getting info that will aid me in a decision. I am talking about the game actually pointing and guiding me to the decision. I think we should draw the line somewhere. By colour coding stuff (green is good , red is bad) EVERYWHERE[(this word is the key to my arguments),i mean the latest patch has even the army names go red if they exceed the supply limit] the player is left with little room to apply his own judgement, his own SKILL.
And yes experienced players should have an advantage over newer ones only because their experience makes them more SKILLFULL. Player SKILL is a combination of memory, judgement, ability.
I mean its enough having made clear to the player that there is a desirable cav/inf ratio to an army and it will affect combat perfomance if its not applied. There is absolutely no need to have cavalry go RED if it that ratio is not met. Same thing with the supply limit.
I am not saying the game is unplayable as it is BUT that i don't like the way things are going.
What is the "best" interface is clearly subjective though.
They worry about instinctive actions becoming second to motivations like fear that a percentage is not quite optimal for a fight. That people stop taking chances (including those that might prove risky but actually could work out very well).
They also fear standardization of strategy to some extend, particularly in this case army composition. As when there is an "optimal" way to do things (by suggestion of the game), why would you, as a player, ever try to deviate from it?
It's more a concern that the game subtly encourages players to take particular actions, rather than inform them of the consequences or prerequesits.
Experience should play a role sure and it always will. As long as this experience can be obtained or if it is very obscure, accessed by all players without having to micromanage and keep detailed notes of everything. Micromanagement is just tedious to most players, not sure if anyone played AfterLife by LucasArts? Think SimCity for heaven/hell for those that never heard of it. That interface was absolutely horrible and ruined the game as automanagement was impossible and utterly inefficient, while not knowing what action would have what consequence unless you played it millions of times, whereas most people I knew who had it stopped playing after a few tries. Knowing where that line of management lies and what people can handle is rather tricky though...
Last edited:
Sorry but no. Chess uses one possible apporach to strategy games - abstraction. Chess is an EXTREMELY abstract game. It is not the "best" exemple just one exemple. There are probably much more strategy games that take a different approach - "simulation".
In "real" life you dont know what EXACTLY the result of your action will be. In other words: strategy in real life is a 'game' based partially on luck. If you want to make an accurate simulation of it you must take into account 'luck' as a factor.
I leave the question: "Is/should be Europa Universalis 3 a simulation* or a purely abstract strategy game" open.
*at least to some extent
Edit:
Interface being informative enough or not is yet another topic.
Last edited:
It's not like the game is telling you what to do. It's just teaching people how to play the game. Maybe new players don't want to consult the forums to learn. I know I learned without the forums and it was really hard! These new interface changes would've been very helpful. I don't even remember how I figured out combined arms in 4.0. It's not like it takes away that much, I find all concepts rather easy to begin with once you get them down. This just makes it easier to get them down. No harm done in making newbs feel less overwhelmed
I think every veteran player has accidentally neglected an army in Siberia, or some other silly thing that could easily have been avoided by some sort of interface warning that would help avoid it.
RL, how often do nations just up and leave armies out in Siberia by accident? Really?
Interface colorations are just like a messenger coming up and saying, "Uh, sir, did you mean to do that?" If you don't like it, shoot the messenger.
I think the interface changes work within in the realm of common sense. In that i mean not many could figure out combined arms, a newb may not understand attrition. It's not like the game is yelling "Quick, retreat to the mountains! Your numercally inferior troops can win there!"
I have to say that I disagree with the first post; the interface improvements have pretty much all been exactly that - improvements.
That said, to all that insist that more information is always the best option, it's worth pointing out that Paradox have deliberately chosen to keep the probabilities involved in diplomatic offers pretty approximate (e.g the chance of a royal marriage with Navaho is "Likely"), and the calculations behind that probability are hidden. Do you think this should be added into the interface?
That said, to all that insist that more information is always the best option, it's worth pointing out that Paradox have deliberately chosen to keep the probabilities involved in diplomatic offers pretty approximate (e.g the chance of a royal marriage with Navaho is "Likely"), and the calculations behind that probability are hidden. Do you think this should be added into the interface?
And here is the rub IMO...if there IS an 'optimal' way then there is no use hiding it from the player. Some people will figure it out and it will either eventually be on the forums as the 'best' or else some people will know it and others won't which doesnt mean that those players are 'better' players, but simply that they spent the time to look into the game's data and find that best combo.
IMO, good strategy games should give you plenty of GOOD options, and then it's up to player to determine which of those 'good' options fits their situation. To me, army composition 'x' should not always be the 'best'. It should vary based on the terrain, the unit types involved, and enemy army composition. If there is an inflexible 'best' ratio of troops, then IMO that is a flaw in the game design (I'm not saying that is the case in EU3, but just in general).
But in no case should a 'good' option be hidden from a player simply because they dont spend the time looking into the database. Regardless, IMO information should be as free as possible to allow the player to make legitimate strategy decisions, not be bothered making simple but tedious calculations.
I have to say I like these new interface improvements. Eventhough I have now played EU3 for 3 or so years, so I know my way around.
I think every veteran player has accidentally neglected an army in Siberia, or some other silly thing that could easily have been avoided by some sort of interface warning that would help avoid it.
RL, how often do nations just up and leave armies out in Siberia by accident? Really?
Interface colorations are just like a messenger coming up and saying, "Uh, sir, did you mean to do that?" If you don't like it, shoot the messenger.
Exactly. The OP complains that it's bad to inform the player when he's in this situation... but IRL, you would be reminded (almost constantly) by your generals if you left your armies to waste away in the desert. And in the game, there's very little to be added by making you check each army against the supply limit every month (supply limit can vary monthly, after all).
Wouldn't you be able to assume experienced players would be able to use tactics like Scorched earth, terrain and attrition better than new players, as well as better organizing their econemy to fight wars?
I am of the opinion that if you need a spreadsheet programme or a pen and paper then the interface is not perfect. There is nothing wrong with paradox letting me know what is the good combined approach if anything I still see that the interface needs some work in order to make EU3 absolutely perfect.
There are probably 2 issues which are a problem.
1. improvements - anyone that has played to slightly later knows that there comes a time when you will want to build 100 or so constables or some such building. At present what you need to do is click the building 100 times, this is a bit silly. I think that this should probably be sorted out with some kind of ai decision.
2. decisions - Here the situation is similar with the added issue that you need to mouse over decisions to find out what they mean.
If these two issues were sorted it would be ideal. The decision problem is probably the worst atm.
There are probably 2 issues which are a problem.
1. improvements - anyone that has played to slightly later knows that there comes a time when you will want to build 100 or so constables or some such building. At present what you need to do is click the building 100 times, this is a bit silly. I think that this should probably be sorted out with some kind of ai decision.
2. decisions - Here the situation is similar with the added issue that you need to mouse over decisions to find out what they mean.
If these two issues were sorted it would be ideal. The decision problem is probably the worst atm.
You are a king (or president/dictator/whatever). If something is wrong, such as army composition that makes it hard for generals to command (too much cavalry too little infantry) or your soldiers are dying of attrittion, someone will let you know that this is happening. This is what flashing red means: your advisors are concerned about army starving. This is why you are warned.
Sometimes, situation will make you exceed the limit. You will still be warned, but you can ignore the warning. If a player always blindly follows supply limits, he will not do as well as someone who inderstands what to do when.
Actually, player has all the room to use judgement and skill. You are given compete chances. It is up to you to make a judgement based on that information.
As for exceeding cavalry ratio, it is exceeded not due to mistake in judgement but due to either not knowing the rule in the first place, but due to not being 100% attentive, which is likely to happen if you are not completely anal about every detail and instead play the game faster. Once again, advisor tell you "uhh, sir!" and call your attention to something that is obvious anyway (to a player who knows the rules). Besides, 50/50 is not necessarially the optimal composition: terrain, likelyhood of assaulting, techs, etc. need to be taken into consideration. This is where judgement comes in.
What do you mean by memory? Knowing the rules? I would not call that skill - every experienced player will know them anyway. And hiding rules from newbies (such as infantry/cavalry ratio) is plain idiotic.
Judgement is making a decision based on facts provided. You are given compete chance and names of armies that are exceeding province supply. Judgement is about deciding what to do about that (Should I divide the army? Should I move it? Should I assault?), not about looking all over the map every game week looking for forgotten armies.
"Ability" is even more vague. Explain what you mean by it.
It is very easy to accientially merge wrong armies and unknowingly exceed the ratio. Hence adviror sating "uhh, sir!"
It is. How else would king's attention be called to it?
Judging from the replies, looks like the game will keep going the way you don't like