What do you think about the new monarch system?

[Skarion]

I don't like it. I want to play a GC from start to end and experience Gustav Vasa, Gustav II Adolf, Karl X, Karl IX, Karl XII etc. Especielly if I do exactly the same things as Sweden did IRL.

The hardest part of this idea is for me to imagine how I start in the 1450s and then won't even ever will be able to experience Gustav Vasa whatever I do.

Well, as Lucien Maury (In France) said in 1918:
In Swedish:

"Sverige - ett visst Sverige - är en person, som i minnet återkallar en stormig undom; en blygsam tillvaroslugn utplånar ingalunda hans minnen, de leva i hans fantasi, han förvandlar dem till drömmar och mardrömmar."

My attempt to English translation:
"Sweden - a certain Sweden - is a person, whom in memory recall a actionfilled youth; a calm and safe life don't destroy his memories, they continues to live in his imagination, he convert them into dreams and nightmares".

And then something I don't even will bother to translate but for all Swedes to read:

By Lucien Maury 1918, Den Svenska Nationalismen och Kriget,
a explanation of us Swedes and expecielly me:

"Kanske skull denna uraktlåtenhet [Att Sverige inte fått sin plats i världen som Sverige kanske förtjänar, läses sidan innan] redan vara avhjälpt, om icke svenskarna hade tyckts uppmuntra en ganska egen uppfattning av sin historia, som ej håller nog räkning med deras egenart och vida mer fäster sig vid det tillfälliga än vid själva kärnan; tjusade av några enastående och lysande figurer, göra de dessa till typiska representanter för sitt förflutna. Grundläggaren av den historiska skolan på 1800-talet, den store Geijer, har förklarat att Sveriges historia är dess konungars."

Here is my point as of why I want the historical monarchs to be in the game, as of that most Swedes, especielly me, have always considered that if we wouldn't had the kings we had, we wouldn't have had the history we got. A history we are proud over, a history which Lucien Maury claim makes us arrogant and unpopular amongst our Norwegian and Danish neighbours, a history which is what we are.

 

[unknownunknown]

The word "like" isn't enought strong to reflect what I think about this new monarch system
It's just what I've always wanted to see in Europa Universalis since the release of Crusader Kings...

"I like it."

Maybe "c'est magnifique" is better

 

[Ayeshteni]

For me it's very important to have an historic game. With this system it's impossible after 200 years (and maybe less).

you could say that you do not get this with EU2. I have never seen a game in which 1820 looked even remotely like history.

I picked the 'doubts - but give it a chance' as I would not say I like it 100%, I do have some reservations so I picked that.

Ayeshteni

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Here is my point as of why I want the historical monarchs to be in the game, as of that most Swedes, especielly me, have always considered that if we wouldn't had the kings we had, we wouldn't have had the history we got. A history we are proud over, a history which Lucien Maury claim makes us arrogant and unpopular amongst our Norwegian and Danish neighbours, a history which is what we are.

...a history that inspired a young Swedish computer programmer to devote the next 10 or so year of his life to create a series of games exploring alternative history....

 

[niceta]

So i have doubt about it.. I like almost everything in the past diaries but the last one let me shocked. i think i'll miss some dramatic events as "Suleyman demands the key of hungary" or "Fire in the Prague Castle"... maybe the risk we had is to have a powerful Abkhazia allied with Tunisia fight against a weak Ottoman Empire but indeed... is a game!!!!!

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

For the record, I like it - with reservations.

The good is that completely random monarchs generated when a ruler dies is much, much, more historical than EU2's list of historical monarchs ever was.

Wait, I hear you cry, more historical?

Yes, indeed 'tis so, because any game of EU is a game of alternate history. From the very moment the game is started we are no longer recreating our "known" history, we are writing a new one. The starting players are known but from then on, ideally, what is going to happen will depend on the participants. Is it "historical" in any sense to have Monarch A follow Monarch B because that happened in our history? Of course it isn't. In the alternate history you are playing B might have died, or, much more likely, never been born in the first place. Is it "historical" in any sense that upon the death of one monarch M a succession war should break out in our alternate history because it did so for M in our history, while it does not for N, who is in similar circumstances to M, but has a different name? Not particularly either.

As such, completely random strangers, regencies, or succession wars generated as the situation demands is vastly more historical than anything you ever saw in EU2. It is not historical in the context of the game to have fixed names, dates, lengths of rule, &etc - sorry, but it is not. The battle wasn't fought that day, the guy wasn't killed by traitors or choking on a fishbone that day, he didn't become a brilliant administrator because of actions that never happened, and most likely his parents never married each other anyhow because a) her granduncle's duchy was annexed and she was never born, b) he was infertile as the result of an unfortunate axe incident anyhow, and c) even if they'd managed to produce a child anyhow despite these difficult circumstances the church would have been against their heir's rule on the grounds of nonexistance.


The reservations - while it is more historical to have "random guys", it lacks the educational "so that's what happened and that's the sort of guy he was" aspect of EU2 and the familiarity one feels upon greeting an old acquaintance (you know, just like the first time you met a Swedish monarch who didn't have super stats - those are guys to wait for with longing in EU2... as an enemy. ).

Let's not kid ourselves - this feeling will be lost for everybody (I'm sure even the most ardent pro-random-guy player has felt this), and for those players for whom the recognizability aspect is really important and even more for the "even though I change stuff in the game, all else should be exactly the same as in the REAL history, no matter whether it makes sense as a historical development in the playing world" players as well, this cannot help but be a big letdown.


The verdict - both are fun and make for interesting gameplay in different ways, but to me the "we'll scrape up a new monarch when you bite the dust, sire, and you'll never know just long you've got till the grim reaper gets you, nor what your successor will be like as a ruler" solution wins the prize for the most interesting one from both a gameplay and a storytelling perspective as well as presenting some tantalising strategical challenges (as well as doing away with the boring "now I'll just save money for 7 years till I get my ADM 9 monarch and THEN do the conversions that EU2 practically begs you to do once you've played a nation enough times that you know the monarchs).


In the end, the EU series has always fundamentally been about changing history, not reenacting it. This is a natural development.

 

[Skarion]

...a history that inspired a young Swedish computer programmer to devote the next 10 or so year of his life to create a series of games exploring alternative history....

I think he enjoy the Swedish history though as else I can't see his interest in alternative history?

I am working on alternative scenarios too about how everything went different. But I still want to play Gustav Vasa and Gustav II Adolf or at least a ensamblance of Swedish history...

Not like in Knights of Honour there everything freaks me out (Fun game but you get tired on it after some hours of gaming as you can't see the point of doing the same thing once again).

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Don't like it. I suspect it will make the game much less immersive, and along with other things, give us a world that looks nothing like the real one. I too have played a lot of EU2, and generally you get outcomes that look roughly similar to what actually happened (colonial empires are similar, major powers are basically recognizable etc.) Will this happen with EU3? Makes me wonder if I'll buy it.

 

[Ayeshteni]

yada yada yada ets etc etc. (saves quoting long post)

I think this sums it up pretty well PE. Well said.

Ayeshteni

 

[Amadís de Gaula]

I don´t like it, it makes the game lose the historical flavour...

Not to mention everybody´s going to send to whatever battle his monarch if he´s crap...

Good for the CK fans. Let´s see.

 

[cwhomer]

Not to mention everybody´s going to send to whatever battle his monarch if he´s crap...

If they choose to send crappy monarchs into battle, they're going to get crappy results. Sounds like a strategic choice/tradeoff to me.

 

[curtis]

I don´t like it, it makes the game lose the historical flavour...

Not to mention everybody´s going to send to whatever battle his monarch if he´s crap...

Good for the CK fans. Let´s see.

Sending a string of bad monarchs to their deaths will likely result in some instability. That oughta prevent that.

 

[maartos]

I love it While the straightjacketed historicity of some other pdox games was educational, it did affect the actual gameplay in a negative way. I don't care that much for things happening as they did historically and seeing the right monarch on the throne at the right time, I care for a historical game like this to be plausible and immersive.

 

[Jolt]

I like it very much, but I have some doubts.

Since monarchs will be pretty much random, I can almost "bet" that these will have psychological traits (Like in CK) To distinguish the good monarchs from the bad ones. (Possibly a way to argument why Pedro X of Portugal has 10 Administrative Ability while Suleiman CII of the Ottoman Empire has 2.)
And another thing I really don't know is that with the loss of the historical monarchs (Which made (In most cases) the External Policies) their ideas and ambitions will be lost, which results in a random AI. (Ottomans becoming a American Colonial Power. Sweden deciding it should conquer Northern Africa, etc) And that will just suck. On the other hand, with random monarchs having an historical AI might have silly results specially if they have strings of monarchs with bad traits/skills (Like Mental Illnesses, etc), whose country launches itself in a massive colonization (At least an attempt), though I'm not sure about this. (The random monarchs having a historical AI being bad.)

 

[unmerged(6777)]

I like it very much, but I have some doubts.

Since monarchs will be pretty much random, I can almost "bet" that these will have psychological traits (Like in CK) To distinguish the good monarchs from the bad ones. (Possibly a way to argument why Pedro X of Portugal has 10 Administrative Ability while Suleiman CII of the Ottoman Empire has 2.)
And another thing I really don't know is that with the loss of the historical monarchs (Which made (In most cases) the External Policies) their ideas and ambitions will be lost, which results in a random AI. (Ottomans becoming a American Colonial Power. Sweden deciding it should conquer Northern Africa, etc) And that will just suck. On the other hand, with random monarchs having an historical AI might have silly results specially if they have strings of monarchs with bad traits/skills (Like Mental Illnesses, etc), whose country launches itself in a massive colonization (At least an attempt), though I'm not sure about this. (The random monarchs having a historical AI being bad.)

I'm mystified.

In what way do you believe that EU2's AI paid the slightest bit of attention to the country's monarch?

The real answer: NONE

So why would random monarch generation automatically result in random game AI? Or anything that would make EU3 different?

:wacko:

 

[unmerged(52850)]

I have my doubts, but as long as the game turns out generally historically I've got not problem with it.

Exactly my point...

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

I really hope this isn't pointing to just random events too. Why can't there be random monarchs, but really famous monarchs always come in the year they took power? If historical events and the following of them are being thrown out the window, then I'll just play CK.

 

[unmerged(51378)]

I don't really know. For gameplay, I think it will be much better, but my modding part cries. Insame amounts. However, if there's the possibility to wake/sleep monarchs (which I *believe* will be possible) then I'm all out for the new system.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

But that would limit your playing experience to (at most, assuming you pick a really long-lived monarch) 50 years or so.

Isn't the point of playing beyond 50 years to change history even more than what 50 years or less would allow?

 

[FredricBastiat]

I have both doubts and hopes, but I'll have to wait for more info before I feel comfortable giving an opinion.