What do you think about the new monarch system?

[unmerged(37697)]

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.

This is quite true. In EU3, whilst Henry VII is king he may have more children, and so an Edward or a James (or indeed an Arthur or Henry) might ascend instead, right? It all depends, presumably, on the names in the English monarch file, and their chances

I do have one major question though - dynasties - how do we change them?

Will a successful succession war result in a change of monarch and/or dynasty?

The only succession war I know a great deal about (besides the HYW) is the Spanish one, so I shall use that as an example. If the Grand Alliance had been completely successful, and overthrown Philip of Anjou and replaced him with an Austrian Habsburg candidate (England & the Netherlands didn't want this; balance of power, etc., but a forceful Austria would have done so anyway...), could such a thing be represented in EU2?

If I win a succession war - by win I mean totally annihilate the enemy and get 100% warscore or something - can I put one of my chaps on the throne and overthrow their chaps? It makes a lot of sense, and it would be a bit odd to see the same monarchs as before; I mean, that would make the aim of a succession war completely unfulfilled, wouldn't it?

I really hope dynasties are represented, even if in an abstract and more generic sense - but it would be clear when one dynasty replaces another; it will be obvious in some sense (ie, Cromwell: monarchy --> republic), but what about EU3 versions of the Glorious Revolution, the Wars of the Roses, the French Wars of Religion, and so on...

Thanks!

 

[Arilou]

Yeah, that's a good point, if you win a succession war will the monarch of the country you are succeeding switch it's monarchs to yours?

(Eg. Johan IV of Sweden engages in a succession war over the throne of England, if he wins, will england get the monarch John WhateverthenumberinEnglandis with the same stats? Or what?

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Indeed, and conversely of course, if you lose a succession war (presumably you can get embroiled in AI succession wars?) then you should get a junior dynasty of the conquering nation to replace yours. This could result in a massive drop in stability, as well as acquiring traits (if applicable?) of said nation.

With any luck, as I mentioned in another post somewhere, a nation's monarch files should/could be split into dynasties (in the same way they are split into government types, ie feudal monarchies, republics, etc.) which could maybe be triggered by flags, and so on.

So, you'd still have EU3's 'random' elements, but you're unlikely to get a Stuart monarch called George or Edward, and so on.

 

[Pellucid]

I like how everyone is making all of these suggestions on how to "fix" the system as presented when over 50% of the people posting here like the new system and would not be happy with a change along the lines of these suggestions that are being made.

 

[unmerged(51378)]

I like how everyone is making all of these suggestions on how to "fix" the system as presented when over 50% of the people posting here like the new system and would not be happy with a change along the lines of these suggestions that are being made.

But those who wants to fix it can still suggest fixes as they probably don't like it.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

I like how everyone is making all of these suggestions on how to "fix" the system as presented when over 50% of the people posting here like the new system and would not be happy with a change along the lines of these suggestions that are being made.

If you refer to my posts, I'm not trying to 'fix' anything. I'm just trying to help by adding a bit of logic - which may be present in the game anyway, seeing as we don't know whether what myself and others have suggested has or will be implemented or not.

If your nation won a succession war, you wouldn't let the enemy's dynasty continue ruling it would you? That's not a 'fix', that's common sense. Louis XIV wouldn't have just gone "oh, well, you played a good round and all's well that end's well, i'll let one of your chaps rule Spain; besides, I've got gangrene to worry about."

 

[Tunch Khan]

Does anyone know if the same system is applicable to religions other than Christianity as well? Are there any differences at all, or just a universal system?

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Does anyone know if the same system is applicable to religions other than Christianity as well? Are there any differences at all, or just a universal system?

Presumably it works across the board, as I'm fairly certain there were succession wars within Islam as well.

Ironically, Islam is based on a succession war

 

[Emre Yigit]

Presumably it works across the board, as I'm fairly certain there were succession wars within Islam as well.

You do tend to have more babies in harems. Don't recall any OE Sultan ever lacking a close male heir, be he son, brother or first cousin. So, will harems be a researchable tech for the Islamic tech tree?

 

[Amadís de Gaula]

Good point, Emre... And what about the pagans?

BTW, all this random thingie is really against the strategical side of the game. Let me explain:

When you play a country en EU2, you play with certain cards: historical leaders, historical monarchs, a certain religion, the richness of your provinces, etc. In SP and MP it is your duty to maximize this cards in the different eras.

With the randomness, you do not only feel the historical flavour of the game: you lose the STRATEGICAL side of it. If you get a good string of good leaders@monarchs in MP, the rest are toasted... Not to mention the would not even know it when they appear, so there´s another surprise element added. So strategy is replaced by pure luck.

Adndf if you try to counteract this by equaling leaders and monarchs the game becomes as "predictable" as before, but in much worse way, and the randomness loses its meaning.

Why, furthermore, stop with the monarchs or leaders? What is the point, as I said before, of having real artists, scientists, etc., and random monarchs?

The more randomness, etc., the nearer the game comes to the CIV or similar series... You may enjoy it for a while, but not for years...

And BTW, if EU2 needed impredictability... Why has the game succeded FOR YEARS? What did it badly lack (a good AI aside)? Was this revolution needed?

I know this bad decission is not going to be reversed, and I´m a bit suffering, being so critic, but I feel this is a huge step back. This may be a good, a great game. But will it be loved like EU2, will it be played for so long like EU2?. I humbly doubt it.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

When you play a country en EU2, you play with certain cards: historical leaders, historical monarchs, a certain religion, the richness of your provinces, etc. In SP and MP it is your duty to maximize this cards in the different eras.

I wouldn't call that a strategy, but rather using an exploit and since in EUII your leaders monarchs appear at the same time every game, and every experienced players knows, or can just check the files, which countries gets which leaders and monarchs at what time it kind of gets predictable.

Also in EUII a lot of countries didn't have good monarchs or good leader or no leaders at all, making them always weak compared to countries with those assets

If you play as Mecklemburg f.e. and start in 1453 and by 1653 you control almost all of the European mainland, it would be strange to not have good leaders available. I always found that a weak point in EUII

 

[Amadís de Gaula]

I wouldn't call that a strategy, but rather using an exploit and since in EUII your leaders monarchs appear at the same time every game, and every experienced players knows, or can just check the files, which countries gets which leaders and monarchs at what time it kind of gets predictable.

Also in EUII a lot of countries didn't have good monarchs or good leader or no leaders at all, making them always weak compared to countries with those assets

If you play as Mecklemburg f.e. and start in 1453 and by 1653 you control almost all of the European mainland, it would be strange to not have good leaders available. I always found that a weak point in EUII

The weak point was in fact being able to conquer Europe with Mecklembrug. But to the point. That hindsight was PART of the game. Every MP player knew that 1492/1640 the spanish leader file rocked and it was weak (not on the naval side) later on... And that France rocked 1630 onwards... So in SP... And everybody takes that into consideration.

This randomness brings luck and not intelligence to the game.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

The weak point was in fact being able to conquer Europe with Mecklembrug. But to the point. That hindsight was PART of the game. Every MP player knew that 1492/1640 the spanish leader file rocked and it was weak (not on the naval side) later on... And that France rocked 1630 onwards... So in SP... And everybody takes that into consideration.

This randomness brings luck and not intelligence to the game.

That has nothing to do with intelligence, just knowledge of the game-facts

In real life, no country said to herself lets wait 20/30 years, then we have a good general who will win our battles. Or when you play against an opponent with good leaders, you knew you just had to sit out that war for 2 more years and then his leader/king would be dead

In the current setup, you have your monarchs and generals/admirals and you can do something with them, which means that sometimes you are limited in your options and sometimes not. But that goes for every country, then you really have to use your intelligence to do something with the 'cards' you have without knowing before you start the game what cards you have.

This is just the old debate between the 'game should be random' and the 'game should be completely historical' so I don't think we will ever agree on this

 

[RossN]

I'm unhappy with the changes.

Though I like ahistorical monarchs in theory (as any reader of my AARs will know) there is a great loss of historical flavour without Elizabeth or Napoleon or Ivan the Terrible. Really the strategical part means very little to me (especially as I usually play minors with poor to average monarchs to begin with) next to the flavour and no Elizabeathen or Napoleonic era removes a lot of the appeal.

Edit: I also - from an AAR perspective - am a bit glum about the succession rules. If I have to wait till the end of King X's 60 year reign to find out if and when he had kids it will have a big impact on my playing/writing style.

 

[Gaijin de Moscu]

I like the generated leaders.

In EU-2, I frequently conquered Europe / Asia with Native American tribes. It was totally unrealistic to be stuck till the end game with an average monarch and no leaders, when controlling half of the world.

Of course, you can say I shouldn't be able to control Spain as Inca, but that's a different age-old discussion.

An example: If China continued their naval explorations in real life, they would have had excellent naval leaders both in Ming dinasty and later.

 

[alvaro]

although at first glance I disliked this new idea, I cannot but agree with fieldmarshall.
it looks that here there is decission to take between realism and historicism.
I'd go for realism.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Besides, the historical advisors are still around. We might just end up with Potemkin having an affair with Peter II instead of Catherine the Great, that's all...

 

[unmerged(10837)]

I am rather unhappy with the new monarch system. For me, EU2 was like an interactive book on history (with alternatives), and I especially liked the detailed event descriptions. If you (only) have random monarchs, you could have "random leaders" instead of Cromwell, "random playwrights" instead of Shakespeare, and "random buildings" instead of the palace of Versailles. 150 years after starting I will not be able to recognize the political map of Europe. I fear that it will be a spiced up CK after all, while I hoped it will resemble HOI2 (which does feature a rather innovative, dynamic leader system in my opinion).

 

[unmerged(58575)]

actually I would like to have a option before the game starts where you can choose (in options) if you want randomised or historical monarchs...so I am half-hearted to the idea

 

[unmerged(5822)]

actually I would like to have a option before the game starts where you can choose (in options) if you want randomised or historical monarchs...so I am half-hearted to the idea

As stated before, it'd require turning off too many other game features.