Tordesillas?

[Petrarca]

Oh, man, a jacobine avatar! But it would be nicer in 'lozenge' with a frigian cap in the center... just a sugerence.

Trust me, then some would start calling BiB 'Marienne.' And things would get ugly after the vengeful Jacobites start hauling us off towards Monsieur Guillotine.

The Portugal thing was deemed somewhat more important as that actually happened.

Harsh words from the Mountain. Still, it would be nice if Aragon got some leaders after 1492. Does the same happen for Byzantium (the dearth of leaders) after 1453?

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Gorion
This would be the same, with the AI chosing the Portuguese option only 90 or 95% of the time.

Erm...............I think you meant ten or five percent here, didn't you?

I think it should be a little higher myself-a marriage is only a marriage after all, and that's how it happened in our history.

 

[unmerged(3440)]

Erm...............I think you meant ten or five percent here, didn't you?

Of course

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Agelastus


An objective so spectacularly failed at twice is hardly an objective.....................

Your argument is not particularly fine-it's a game of "altering" history, not "reliving" it.

IF it is so geared towards altering history then why have events, hardcoded ablities and many more ? Why is the betaforum now mobilised to making Turkey perform well ? Why ... ? The game isn't about "it's 1419, the situation is given, anything can happen from now on"

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Petrarca

Trust me, then some would start calling BiB 'Marienne.' And things would get ugly after the vengeful Jacobites start hauling us off towards Monsieur Guillotine.


Harsh words from the Mountain. Still, it would be nice if Aragon got some leaders after 1492. Does the same happen for Byzantium (the dearth of leaders) after 1453?

U can get good default leaders. Which is all u should get, it's not like there are historic ones. Unhistorical ones u can breed thru dp settings.

 

[unmerged(5934)]

I'm with Bib here. Allowing variations is one thing, going wild with them, quite another.

And it's jacobines or jacobins?, not jacobites (wild images of tall, red-haired men in kilts and berets pushing aristocrats towards the guillotine... Hollywood would love it! )

 

[celedhring]

Originally posted by Alatriste
I'm with Bib here. Allowing variations is one thing, going wild with them, quite another.

And it's jacobines or jacobins?, not jacobites (wild images of tall, red-haired men in kilts and berets pushing aristocrats towards the guillotine... Hollywood would love it! )

But that actually disencourages players of taking other paths than the historical. And suggesting that union with Portugal is also contemplated as a via for creation of Spain isn't wild as long as Castille eyed this for quite a long time. I mean, players should be able to have both ways: a close historical game or a more free one, in which AI has more chance of choosing not historical options in events.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by celedhring


But that actually disencourages players of taking other paths than the historical. And suggesting that union with Portugal is also contemplated as a via for creation of Spain isn't wild as long as Castille eyed this for quite a long time. I mean, players should be able to have both ways: a close historical game or a more free one, in which AI has more chance of choosing not historical options in events.

Why should players have it both ways?
I don't remember Paradox promising this?
You can ask to have it both ways but I don't think there was any committment by Paradox to deliver this. A small point i know but there's alot of opinion on these boards that goes along the lines of

" I want this feature - this feature should be in the game - why isn't this feature in the game - as players we are entitled to this feature"

Paradox delivered the game it promised. I quote from the advertising material

"Event Engine
Europa Universalis II features a brand new event engine that produces historical, random and special events. The event engine is designed to let the player create his own events making it very fun to build scenarios. Many of the events have multiple choices. Will you support the Lancaster or the York family during the War of the Roses? Will you build Versailles and be showered in Glory, increasing the power of Aristocracy? Or will you save France from the trembles of revolution? These are the decisions that you shall be challenged with in order to bring your country and people to prosperity."

Paradox did not promise to support all conceiveable alternate histories - only to make it possible for the player to create them if he/she wished. Paradox have delivered on most of the historical options and i know that the betazoids (and soon the US players) will be helping to improve the events even more.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Alatriste
And it's jacobines or jacobins?, not jacobites (wild images of tall, red-haired men in kilts and berets pushing aristocrats towards the guillotine... Hollywood would love it! )

Jacobins.

Why do you think all Scots have red hair?

BiB etc.
All historical possibilities...............no-after all, it takes a science fiction writer to come up with the possibility of having the Aztecs conquer the world-but something like the eminently reasonable idea of Castile and Portugal uniting, AS HISTORY SHOWS THEY COULD QUITE WELL HAVE DONE...........................YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

Now he's got me shouting....................

Limitations are all very well, but drawing the line too harshly is in many ways worse than drawing them too liberally.

And I never said I approved of scripted events-or at least not as long as they form part of such a restricted "choice tree".

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Agelastus


Jacobins.

Why do you think all Scots have red hair?

BiB etc.
All historical possibilities...............no-after all, it takes a science fiction writer to come up with the possibility of having the Aztecs conquer the world-but something like the eminently reasonable idea of Castile and Aragon uniting, AS HISTORY SHOWS THEY COULD QUITE WELL HAVE DONE...........................YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

Now he's got me shouting....................

Limitations are all very well, but drawing the line too harshly is in many ways worse than drawing them too liberally.

And I never said I approved of scripted events-or at least not as long as they form part of such a restricted "choice tree".

Castille and Aragon sounds nice

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by BiB
Castille and Aragon sounds nice

Fixed.

Oh master of pedants.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by Agelastus


And I never said I approved of scripted events-or at least not as long as they form part of such a restricted "choice tree".

You see this is the problem - if you don't approve of the restricted "choice tree" which is at the heart of EU2, the game will never satisfy you. It's a bit pointless debating your ideas because they should really be in EU 3 discussions.

I come from the viewpoint that some improvement is better than none and I'd rather use the existing game engine to its fullest rather than pick holes in the game for not meeting your very high expectations.

Will you buy the game?

 

[unmerged(5314)]

Leaders/events

Hm why doesn't the game make the leaders arise in provinces, not in countries? Estremaduras historically gives birth to the greatest of conquistadors, Cortez and Pizarro - does it matter who controls it? Henry of Navarre will have his military genius, whether he becomes King of France or not, and gets that nice "IV" tag. Point being, those great historical personalities are the product and the pride of their home province first of all - especially so in EU period when nationalism was in the infant stage and so their loyalty is not to the 'state' or 'French people' or anything modern like that. That would certainly fix the Castile/Aragon disunion problem.

BTW, why do people go around spelling it as Castille?

Cheers, Alva/

 

[Derek Pullem]

This has been discussed many times before and is an interesting idea. The only problem is that you get involved in the "War of Napoleon's Grandmother" where the player will maneuver to take certain provinces at a certain time to gain the uber-leaders.

One modification which is too late for EU 2 (so I guess by my own definition should be in a different thread ) that I would ahve liked to see is the concept of leader vlaues changing depending how succesful they are. A raw Napoleon would be good but not outstanding (say 4330) and if he won a string of victories he would gain in experience. Likewise if he lost a string of battles the rating might fall.

You could also apply this to random army leaders to represent stars rising from the general staff.

 

[unmerged(5314)]

Right Derek, I thought of that. That leads us along the unihistorical path though, something that Paradox, from my impression, hopes to avoid.

It's possible to cure this problem by bringing in generic leaders with combat values completely hidden. These values would be unknown to the player, but randomized around the basic country values. After a battle, win or lose, there is a small chance that one of the leader's values is revealed. In this way, while you can't raise a Napoleon a la Heroes of Might and Magic (unhistorical), you can "spot" one by making various generic leaders fight several battles. Trouble is, the historical Napoleon would still have to go under this setup - but this could be an option at the start of the game. "Fog of Generalship" on, anyone?

 

[celedhring]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem


Why should players have it both ways?
I don't remember Paradox promising this?

I'm sorry to sound harsh, but this is a sorry stupid excuse, Derek. You're surely clever enough to come up with a reason other than "Paradox didn't say XXXXX". Paradox wants a better game. We want a better game. We are in the same boat so the only argument I will accept is a reasoning of why allowing my proposition (and, in general, development of alternative history paths) would result in a WORSE game.

 

[unmerged(485)]

But once you found a promising prospect you would send him to some backwater to fight old ladies and invalids so he could get his stats up.

 

[Owl]

Originally posted by Sonny
But once you found a promising prospect you would send him to some backwater to fight old ladies and invalids so he could get his stats up.

No, old ladies and Incas!

 

[Petrarca]

Right Derek, I thought of that. That leads us along the unihistorical path though, something that Paradox, from my impression, hopes to avoid.

It's possible to cure this problem by bringing in generic leaders with combat values completely hidden. These values would be unknown to the player, but randomized around the basic country values. After a battle, win or lose, there is a small chance that one of the leader's values is revealed. In this way, while you can't raise a Napoleon a la Heroes of Might and Magic (unhistorical), you can "spot" one by making various generic leaders fight several battles. Trouble is, the historical Napoleon would still have to go under this setup - but this could be an option at the start of the game. "Fog of Generalship" on, anyone?

A fine idea, one which could be used for historical leaders also- simply have their values varied a little, say from 2/2/3/0 to 3/4/4/1. That is how things historically happened, as the Union Army found to its dismay during the Civil War after a string of what would be 2/0/1/0 leaders.

As to the fighting in the backwaters- didn't Wellington start out that way?

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by celedhring


I'm sorry to sound harsh, but this is a sorry stupid excuse, Derek. You're surely clever enough to come up with a reason other than "Paradox didn't say XXXXX". Paradox wants a better game. We want a better game. We are in the same boat so the only argument I will accept is a reasoning of why allowing my proposition (and, in general, development of alternative history paths) would result in a WORSE game.

I don't have to. We can talk till we are blue in the face as to nerits of this and that but Johan et al have to be paid and if something is going to take a lot of work for minimal return, it's not going to get done. The point I was trying to make was don't slag them off for not delivering something that they didn't promise to deliver.

You can "accept" this or not, that's your perogative. The hypothetical argument over whether alternative history paths should have been coded (and they would have to be - in the sense that they would need to generate events and leaders and monarchs) is ultimately futile as they are not in the game and such a large change to the game is unlikely to be developed by Paradox as a patch. So I choose not to argue it.

Derek