What do you think about the new monarch system?

[unmerged(37697)]

Well...yeah. Except it's rather an exploit, particularly when AI can't/doesn't do it.

The thing I like most about random monarch generation is that you never really know when's the best time to do the "extra special stuff" so you need to formulate a strategy that incorporates this new uncertainty. For instance, with EU2 I would horde missionaries if I had an upcoming high-admin ruler, or I would just plod along trying the concersions anyway if I knew that I didn't have anything better coming up. With EU3, I don't have any idea what's coming up so I will a strategy that doesn't paralize my activities at the present, but which can also take advantage of a high-stat ruler if/when comes along.

That sounds like an excellent idea, actually

I mean, with hindsight (a truly wonderful thing I'm sure we all agree), many people throughout history knowing full well they were in a brilliant position at the time, had decided to start a war with another nation (or nations), thinking it relatively easy - and then something happening that wasn't particularly expected and an incompetent but well-meaning chap (or chapette!) replacing them and it all going tits up, so to speak.

I of course refer to the latter stages of the HYW, but such a situation can be rendered to many people throughout the EUII & III timespans

My point is, that playing a game in a long, drawn-out war in game A may warrant King X - with his 9/9/7 stats - living for fifty years and your war being an utter success. However, playing game B and trying to follow the same route to success may involve King X dying after two or three years and being replaced by his two infant sons Kings Y and Z who rule for 80 years with 1/2/3 stats. As a result, your entire war may fall apart; and perhaps as a result of such a poor monarch you get inferior leaders and events, and perhaps national ideas and whatever else Johan happens to link to monarchs?

Hope that makes some sense

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Which is not alwaysa bad thing IMHO. It means that you'll time your expansion to the skill of your monarchs.

However, the game shouldn't be made to make use of OOC knowledge if possible. Randomizing monarchs achieves this.

 

[Arilou]

However, the game shouldn't be made to make use of OOC knowledge if possible. Randomizing monarchs achieves this.

Yes, but it also removes a bunch of historical flavour. Which is why I'm mainly negative (I'll give it a chance though, but the loss of flavour needs to be made up somehow)

IE: It's good one way, bad another. We'll have to see how they balance the rest of the game before I can judge it's overall goodness or badness.

EDIT: if you *really* want to abolish OOC knowledge.... Shouldn't the stats of your monarchs be hdiden as well? People (especially stupid people ) seldom knows the exact extent of their talents after all....

 

[unmerged(5822)]

So no Gustav II Adolf at all is better? ... Right...

What would EU be without GIIA? Napoleon and Charles V in all honor, but Gurra is best.

And now, you can dive straight into the thirty-years war using his leadership and making sure that the only empire is a protestant one (and that Denmark becomes the province it has always deserved to be), making the world remember it as Sweden's finest hour.

Having 200 years of preparation really takes the edge off winning the 30 years war anyway...

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Yes, but it also removes a bunch of historical flavour. Which is why I'm mainly negative (I'll give it a chance though, but the loss of flavour needs to be made up somehow)

IE: It's good one way, bad another. We'll have to see how they balance the rest of the game before I can judge it's overall goodness or badness.

EDIT: if you *really* want to abolish OOC knowledge.... Shouldn't the stats of your monarchs be hdiden as well? People (especially stupid people ) seldom knows the exact extent of their talents after all....

On the other hand, this change increases the attraction of starting at later dates and playing other scenarios than "the grand campaign".

 

[Arilou]

And now, you can dive straight into the thirty-years war using his leadership and making sure that the only empire is a protestant one (and that Denmark becomes the province it has always deserved to be), making the world remember it as Sweden's finest hour.

Having 200 years of preparation really takes the edge off winning the 30 years war anyway...

Except that the 30-years war NEVER happened in EU2. One of it's more spectacular failures I think, since it was the reason I bought the game in the first place...

 

[unmerged(2456)]

EDIT: if you *really* want to abolish OOC knowledge.... Shouldn't the stats of your monarchs be hdiden as well? People (especially stupid people ) seldom knows the exact extent of their talents after all....

Doesn't work, for long atleast. See the number of Bridefinders for CK that can locate the two hidden stats, fertility and health. I think some even in RT, incase you want to cheat in MP.

 

[Arilou]

On the other hand, this change increases the attraction of starting at later dates and playing other scenarios than "the grand campaign".

Not really. I absolutely loathe later starting dates. (I never play any other scneario than the Grand Campaign in any paradox game) Now it straight-jackens you into starting later. (But it's meaningless anyway, since you can never get both Gustav Wasa & GIIA)

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Knowing the stats of existing rulers isn't really too big a deal because the AI knows it too. But having AI "look ahead" to future rulers as part of its decision-making process would be nasty because of the resource requirements.

A little side consideration for you:

In EU2, all monarchs and leaders (for all years) had to be loaded into memory when the game loaded. With random generation, this isn't necessary for EU3 which actually frees up a not-insignificant amount of memory...

 

[unmerged(5822)]

In EU2, all monarchs and leaders (for all years) had to be loaded into memory when the game loaded. With random generation, this isn't necessary for EU3 which actually frees up a not-insignificant amount of memory...

What of dead rulers of the past?

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Not really. I absolutely loathe later starting dates. (I never play any other scneario than the Grand Campaign in any paradox game) Now it straight-jackens you into starting later. (But it's meaningless anyway, since you can never get both Gustav Wasa & GIIA)

How does it? You can start whenever you want

Having had time to think things through, I am in love with the new ideas put forward. In EU2, you followed history in parallel as a sort of 'overseer' who could either follow it to the T (as much as possible in EU2 territory, at least) or completely deviate.

In EU3, they've taken this a step further. Whichever date you start at (be it 1492, 1648 or 1792), you step out of history and into ahistory. As soon as a game starts, you accept the fact that history can't always be the same. Instead of what are essentially hardcoded parameters in EU2 (kings & queens always come about and die at the same time, forgetting AGCEEP ahistory/fantasy settings...), in EU3 we accept the fact that so and so may have died at a different time.

It's a fairly alien system for all of us, because it's the first time an EU2 game has allowed for his much freedom, but if you sit back and think about all the oppertunities it opens up, I think it's actually much better, and will make the game much more playable for the vast majority of those who play it.

Regarding random monarch names; generally speaking loads of monarchs had loads of children, many of whom simply died in childbirth or infancy, and there are many cases of obscure, presumed-they-would-die-beforehand princes becoming king and reigning for quite a while. Henry VIII, to use a single example, had loads of children called Henry, all of whom died - only his sickly son (read: son) Edward actually managed to become king, and he succumbed to TB at 16.

Thus, if we have a random monarch after Henry VIII (let's presume I load up in 1530, so he is historically king...) called Henry IX or even John II or something, then I'm happy because it would make sense. Edward VI doesn't have to succeed him.

I'll be quiet now :rofl:

 

[unmerged(6777)]

What of dead rulers of the past?

Johan will probably talk about this in some future diary.


Note that in my previous post when I say "all rulers and leaders", I mean *all* of them...every single one for every single nation...

 

[Arilou]

It's a fairly alien system for all of us, because it's the first time an EU2 game has allowed for his much freedom, but if you sit back and think about all the oppertunities it opens up, I think it's actually much better, and will make the game much more playable for the vast majority of those who play it.

And I think that, while it has it's advantages, it also loses something essential: EU2/the Paradox games were essentially the *only* historical games (okay, not really, but you get the point) where you could interact with Napoleon, GIIA, Elizabeth, etc. etc. This is makes the games a little less unique. If what I wanted was a completely ahistorical game.... Well, there are others out there. *Only* Paradox has (to date) create historical ones though.

It's not a wholly bad idea. But it loses out on a lot of what made the EU series different from your run-of-the-mill strategy game with a historical backdrop (like Civ or Knights of Honour or what-have you)

How does it? You can start whenever you want

Not if I want to play with Suleiman.
And I can't *ever* play with Suleiman AND Mehmet in the same game. Impossible.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Regarding random monarch names; generally speaking loads of monarchs had loads of children, many of whom simply died in childbirth or infancy, and there are many cases of obscure, presumed-they-would-die-beforehand princes becoming king and reigning for quite a while. Henry VIII, to use a single example, had loads of children called Henry, all of whom died - only his sickly son (read: son) Edward actually managed to become king, and he succumbed to TB at 16.

Another good example is his dad.

Henry VII had three sons: Arthur, Edmund and Henry. Edmund died quite young iirc. Arthur married Catherine of Aragon (he was 14, she was 16 and it was the future Henry VII that escorted her down the aisle at her wedding...). Both Arthur and Catherine became very ill within months of their marriage. Catherine survived, Arthur did not. Thus young 12-year old 3rd son Henry (who would be Henry VIII) became the heir apparent. After lots of wrangling with Catherine's parents (Ferdinand & Isabella of Casstile/Aragon) it was arranged for Henry to marry Catherine when he reached his 14th birthday.

Later, Henry VII made his son reneg on the deal...but not until after all sorts of entertaining interactions between Henry VII and the Pope regarding the status of Catherine's former marriage (which had to be annulled). Then ensued rather an interesting flurry of negotiations between soon-to-be-Spain and England. In the end, Henry did marry Catherine...but that wasn't until some years later when he had recently acceeded to the English throne. Of course we all know what happened after that.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Not if I want to play with Suleiman.
And I can't *ever* play with Suleiman AND Mehmet in the same game. Impossible.

If you load up at a date when Suleiman was Sultan, you will get him with his correct historical stats and stuff; he may die in a year, he may die in ten, he may die on the day he did historically

And you could well get Suleiman and Mehmet in the same game

 

[unmerged(45766)]

If you load up at a date when Suleiman was Sultan, you will get him with his correct historical stats and stuff; he may die in a year, he may die in ten, he may die on the day he did historically

And you could well get Suleiman and Mehmet in the same game

Not the real Mehmet.

 

[Arilou]

If you load up at a date when Suleiman was Sultan, you will get him with his correct historical stats and stuff; he may die in a year, he may die in ten, he may die on the day he did historically

And you could well get Suleiman and Mehmet in the same game

No, you can't. You can get *a* Mehmet, but not *Mehmet*.

And yes, but that forces you to start in 1500-whatever. And thus you miss out on about 100 years of gameplay. Which is something like 1/4th of the game.

Unlike in EU2 where you could easily have both of these things (a full game with both Mehmet & Suleiman around)

 

[Johan]

Not the real Mehmet.

real?

 

[Arilou]

real?

Y'know. The one that kicked ass.

 

[Registered]

If you load up at a date when Suleiman was Sultan, you will get him with his correct historical stats and stuff; he may die in a year, he may die in ten, he may die on the day he did historically

And you could well get Suleiman and Mehmet in the same game

The chances of the historical Mehmet appearing at the historical time in the game seem extremely remote. Someone called Mehmet might sit the throne at some point, but that's just not the same thing. I have to somehwat agree with Duuk and Arilou here taking away the historical monarchs takes flavour away from the game (how much we'll have to see). Maybe events could be created in a mod to enforce a historical line of succesion, but something tellls me that that would not work very well and clash with the rest of the dynastic system (wars of succession, random deaths). I really hope that the historical monarchs do die on their historical dates (unless you get them killed in battle) 't would not be fun to have them keeling over for no apparent reason only years after they take the throne.
I don't really get the argument that a historical line of succesion makes the player wait untill he gets a better monarch before he does something. If a player wants to peek in the lsit and memorise every monarch surely that is up to the player? Even with random monarchs a player would be less active if he had a bad monarch (less chance of success at conversions and such) true, he could not be certain that the succesor would be better but it's a gamble you could take (especially if you had a really bad monarch.

EDIT: ack! this is one fact thread.