With historical events the game would be much more fun and more historical plausible because tru events we can gain cb's against various nations in which we and the AI can expand the playable nation in historical direction.
well, it may be his own opinion but it may also relate to something paradox posted not long ago that from here on out patches will be more aligned with bug fixes and game tuning and less likely to include enhancements.Why not?
Mack the Knife said:well, it may be his own opinion but it may also relate to something paradox posted not long ago that from here on out patches will be more aligned with bug fixes and game tuning and less likely to include enhancements.
:rofl:Tai-Pan said:Ya we have to buy expansion packs for that...
The difference between knowing that a event giving a CB will soon or later fire or sending a bunch of assassins?SJG said:Historical events suck.
People know they are coming and play the events rather than the game.
I think it is funner to play against the eventsSJG said:Historical events suck.
People know they are coming and play the events rather than the game.
DarthJF said:Hopefully Paradox will give Rome expansion pack that has historical missions like IN is going to have. That would give more flavour, but not bring determinism of EU2.
comagoosie said:same thing was asked for EU3 and it didn't happen, so I guess it won't happen in Rome either.
In the second case you're not getting things handed to you on a platter. Also, you're not getting into situations you would normally avoid but can't because in another time line some of the rulers were idiots. This is especially annoying when the situation created by the historical event makes no sense within the game you're playing.BBuk80 said:The difference between knowing that a event giving a CB will soon or later fire or sending a bunch of assassins?