-
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.
Yes such as rockets.. rockets has been used in warfare for a long time, fire rockets and so on, even China used them long time ago...
damn i can't find the book with the rockets history...
well i think (not really sure, don't remember) England used rockets againt Copenhagen during the Napoleon wars
damn i can't find the book with the rockets history...
well i think (not really sure, don't remember) England used rockets againt Copenhagen during the Napoleon wars
So you will have some/all new tech's to research??
Darnit, my misspelling of Threes is pretty BAD...
Personally I think you are missing the point.
EU is not about 'tech trees' etc.
It is a socio-multipolitical game- the secret of its sucess. Its depth lies in its difficult balancing act of social pressure and international relations. There ought to be, and is the way, its going to go.
having new militay unit types is irrelevant on the scale. The game isn't about micro management, a concept that is stupidly unrealistic on a game of this scale and direction. Sure its fun in CIV but this is a proper historical simulator.
EU is not about 'tech trees' etc.
It is a socio-multipolitical game- the secret of its sucess. Its depth lies in its difficult balancing act of social pressure and international relations. There ought to be, and is the way, its going to go.
having new militay unit types is irrelevant on the scale. The game isn't about micro management, a concept that is stupidly unrealistic on a game of this scale and direction. Sure its fun in CIV but this is a proper historical simulator.
Hey, I was just wondering whether they would add/change tech's, I dont find it as a research this and that and I will get this and that.
But hey since you can research some things in EU, I think that my Q is all right.
But hey since you can research some things in EU, I think that my Q is all right.
Fair enough.
I just think that 'research' is just fine at the moment. I would personally like to see greater historical depth and factors.
States don't have much control over their political future, it is pre ordained by the people within the state, thus empires rise and fall. It is the socio-political environment that sets this agenda in the long run with governments only making small decisions. A good analogy is the boat going down stream with different helmsmen as governments. They will nearly always go down stream but they can chose the route....
I just think that 'research' is just fine at the moment. I would personally like to see greater historical depth and factors.
States don't have much control over their political future, it is pre ordained by the people within the state, thus empires rise and fall. It is the socio-political environment that sets this agenda in the long run with governments only making small decisions. A good analogy is the boat going down stream with different helmsmen as governments. They will nearly always go down stream but they can chose the route....
I admit research is one of the smaller things in EU's game play, I for one am looking forward mostly to the new choices in the socio political gmae play.
It would be very nice if all impacts of the tech-tree on the gameplay are clearly explained in the game before research is complete (like "LevelX on trade allows this and that to be built and adds x % to your trade-income"). This applies even more to military research.
Historicaly they prollydid not know what the stuff they built and created would have for impact on the economy or warfare.
Originally posted by Carolus Rex
Historicaly they prollydid not know what the stuff they built and created would have for impact on the economy or warfare.
Historically there were not gov't r&d facilities making new secret weapons. This tek tree will be interesting since the earlier start date really adds to the technology challenge.
How about a blind tech tree then. One where you can still make some choices as what "branch" to research but you don't get any clues regarding the end result. This way you can try to speed things up by allocating more funds to a certain area of research but you don't know when the big breakthrough is going to come.
It might be possible to put in a random factor too, where even 100 percent allocation to land research doesn't always give you a land tech.
Tue
It might be possible to put in a random factor too, where even 100 percent allocation to land research doesn't always give you a land tech.
Tue
Certainly for the military techs, I think the current progression and expediture represent the re-fitting of your forces to the new tech, not R&D leading to a breakthrough.
Scientific advances did not translate into actual development so quickly (if at all) back then. (ie don't think Civ / MoO 2 tech tree)
Therefore, a state has every right to choose to spend its hard earned taxes on new ships or new infrastructure as it sees fit - just as the EU system does now.
Scientific advances did not translate into actual development so quickly (if at all) back then. (ie don't think Civ / MoO 2 tech tree)
Therefore, a state has every right to choose to spend its hard earned taxes on new ships or new infrastructure as it sees fit - just as the EU system does now.
I thought it included both the research and the implementation but I could be wrong.
Tue
I don’t claim to be an expert!
However, I think research costs to the state were fairly minimal – evaluation rather than invention.
Most R&D was done either for the fun of it, or by someone hoping to get rich selling his new submarine or whatever to a navy (pick a navy, any navy).
However, I think research costs to the state were fairly minimal – evaluation rather than invention.
Most R&D was done either for the fun of it, or by someone hoping to get rich selling his new submarine or whatever to a navy (pick a navy, any navy).
The native techs need modifications. The american natives quickly aquired guns and metal from traders (not the know how for manufacture of even the science behind) but they quickly adapted european items (especially horses) to their own.
I think there should be a learning curve that is influence by contact and possibly the ability to purchase or steal technologies from other nations.
I think there should be a learning curve that is influence by contact and possibly the ability to purchase or steal technologies from other nations.
I wonder how they have solved the issue of tech transfer when you annex a nation with higher tech then you.
Which, Gentlemen, leads us into unfamiliar territory.
On the premise that military innovation was by and large not state driven at the time do we remove the military and naval tech investment options? Perhaps there ought to be a radical overhaul of the military advancement path.
What did drive military innovation?
I would argue this. It was driven by four factors. Individuals with a vision (of which there were numerous), technology advancement, experience of war, in particular, defeat, and finally, threat driven.
Thus large dominant states have no need to militarily innovate unless they have an individual of vision. This individual impact would be hampered or helped by the lead/ deficit of the concerned country. The chances of individuals appearing would be driven by the freedom of thought within the state and the type of sovereign. There is also a large element of randomness in this.
Technology advancement will drive military innovation as commercial technology advances are applied in the military realm. How civil technology advances is largely down to trade and infrastructure. I would link it to those two factors.
Experience of defeat will always drive change. This is self explanatory.
Threat driven. This is already in the game as a neighbour bonus factor. But I would make it slightly more complicated, how? I’m not entirely sure.
But I think the above system has to be far more realistic than the current one.
On the premise that military innovation was by and large not state driven at the time do we remove the military and naval tech investment options? Perhaps there ought to be a radical overhaul of the military advancement path.
What did drive military innovation?
I would argue this. It was driven by four factors. Individuals with a vision (of which there were numerous), technology advancement, experience of war, in particular, defeat, and finally, threat driven.
Thus large dominant states have no need to militarily innovate unless they have an individual of vision. This individual impact would be hampered or helped by the lead/ deficit of the concerned country. The chances of individuals appearing would be driven by the freedom of thought within the state and the type of sovereign. There is also a large element of randomness in this.
Technology advancement will drive military innovation as commercial technology advances are applied in the military realm. How civil technology advances is largely down to trade and infrastructure. I would link it to those two factors.
Experience of defeat will always drive change. This is self explanatory.
Threat driven. This is already in the game as a neighbour bonus factor. But I would make it slightly more complicated, how? I’m not entirely sure.
But I think the above system has to be far more realistic than the current one.