What do you want our download team to do?

[beatoangelico]

If EU3 is so horrible in the middle ages, how come everyone chooses to play the Grand Campaign?

People want earlier, not later. If they didn't, they'd all start in 1453 which was the original EU3 startdate.

If given the option to play as Saxon England, I'd wager a lot of people would enjoy it. There'd still be the ability to play as Norman England with later dates, but why eliminate the possibility? Saxon England, united Ireland, a strong Byzantium, an independent Italy, an independent kingdom of Burgundy, the Danelaw.... the early 11th century is far more exciting than the late 11th century.

People use England as an example, but when CK begins, the fight is already over. The Danes lost, the Saxons lost, the Normans won and it's settled history. Boring.

ooh, great example. Just because people play the 1399 gran campaign (which is purely psychological thing: "I want the full game experience and start from scratch") then the EU3 engine works perfectly with middle ages and you can easily set the start date in 1000 AD or something . Completely logical.

 

[Brian Bóruma]

Who said it works perfectly in the middle ages?

The CK engine is horrible for the Hundred Years War. The EU3 engine is much better for it.

 

[beatoangelico]

Who said it works perfectly in the middle ages?

The CK engine is horrible for the Hundred Years War. The EU3 engine is much better for it.

Really? Please tell what's so wrong about CK in the XIV century.

 

[unmerged(207113)]

The CK engine is horrible for the Hundred Years War. The EU3 engine is much better for it.

You are mental.

Austen.

 

[Darth Tracid]

keep it nice people...you don´t want the thread closed, do you?

 

[Chaos128]

Johan, King, et all. I am very pleased with this guys! This is really exciting! I did vote for an exp for Victoria 2. However another EU3 expansion was my second choice! I look forward to reading more about your ideas for the Rotw. I love how that will be the focus of a future EU3 expansion. Keep up the good work, and I'll keep buying. You guys really are geniuses with the slider system, events, etc It just keeps getting better! Thanks!

 

[exenter]

Voted for a new EU3 Expansion because every EU3 expansion has improved the game a lot.

EU:Rome is too boring and I thought the VV expansion didn't make the game more enjoyable. It only increased micromanagement.

 

[Davisx3m]

EU3. I vote Rome but changed my mind.

 

[Brian Bóruma]

Really? Please tell what's so wrong about CK in the XIV century.

Play the 1337 scenario in CK.

As England, you beat the French once, force them to accept your claim as King of France, and the war is over. It certainly won't take 100 years to win. You could do it in less than five.

In EU3, it's far more realistic. A struggle that often takes quite a few wars, and has the backstabbing alliance-switching that CK lacks.

There is no way in the CK system to explain the Treaty of Troyes, where France accepts the English claim and agrees to make the King of England's son his heir. In EU, you can put England and France in a PU and then break it.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Still I'd rather take a new game series for the high and late middle ages in that case (or possibly a second CK?). The EU games have always been about the early modern era, the engine is built around wars of religion, centralized states and colonialism. 1399 is already stretching it for that.
All my opinion of course but I'd rather have two series than one covering more than 500 years...

 

[Alexander Seil]

While I did vote for Rome, I actually think I have changed my mind too now - I want to see what Paradox means by the "ROTW focus" - since that has never been the case in any Paradox game. They're always Euro-centric.

 

[Tommy4ever]

Play the 1337 scenario in CK.

As England, you beat the French once, force them to accept your claim as King of France, and the war is over. It certainly won't take 100 years to win. You could do it in less than five.

In EU3, it's far more realistic. A struggle that often takes quite a few wars, and has the backstabbing alliance-switching that CK lacks.

There is no way in the CK system to explain the Treaty of Troyes, where France accepts the English claim and agrees to make the King of England's son his heir. In EU, you can put England and France in a PU and then break it.

In the RL 100 years war England did briefly hold the title King of France. Also if you did as you said you'd likely face a major rebellion as the French culture nobility of France (many likely with links to the previous ruling dynasty) would rise up in arms. You'd have to fight to placate these vassals and the war could last a long time. The 100 years war might have been over alot faster had the French not managed to pull a couple of shock victories out of the bad (Joan of Arc).

In EU all that you would do would be to take a couple of provs every few years. There would be no rebellions of any note or major threats to English rule in France just a slow repetitive march forward.

 

[beatoangelico]

Play the 1337 scenario in CK.

As England, you beat the French once, force them to accept your claim as King of France, and the war is over. It certainly won't take 100 years to win. You could do it in less than five.

In EU3, it's far more realistic. A struggle that often takes quite a few wars, and has the backstabbing alliance-switching that CK lacks.

There is no way in the CK system to explain the Treaty of Troyes, where France accepts the English claim and agrees to make the King of England's son his heir. In EU, you can put England and France in a PU and then break it.

aside of the fact that you continue to identify the late middle ages with the 100 years war, which is laughable at best...yes, in EU3 you have personal unions, and what else? A warfare model that works best? Maybe it works best, but it's out of place in the an era where where feudal armies were still the norm. CK warfare sucks, but that's not really the strenght of the game. With CK you have all the feudal backstabbing stuff and it's odd to think that it was somewhat unimportant in the XIV-XV centuries.

 

[unmerged(187334)]

The best reason to have the game start later is so that development can focus on these later periods. The original EU Board Game was set in years 1492-1792. EU was always about Reneissance/Baroque/Classical era conquest, colonization and exploration. I think the optimal solution is for there to be a dedicated game for XIII-XV century Europe.

The same problem occurs in the French Republic/Empire era. EU engine breaks down at this point... So I would also support a new game dedicated to Napoleonic Conquests.

 

[Zzrow Graff]

Rome! Rome! Rome!

 

[Brian Bóruma]

aside of the fact that you continue to identify the late middle ages with the 100 years war, which is laughable at best...yes, in EU3 you have personal unions, and what else? A warfare model that works best? Maybe it works best, but it's out of place in the an era where where feudal armies were still the norm. CK warfare sucks, but that's not really the strenght of the game. With CK you have all the feudal backstabbing stuff and it's odd to think that it was somewhat unimportant in the XIV-XV centuries.

I'm a CK fan.... but it should focus on the crusades. Norman invasion, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc.

After 1377, the game is pretty much obsolete. There's an overlap, because CK ends in 1453. Hopefully CK2 will be different.

 

[unmerged(131989)]

Considering HoI3 and EU3 have expansions, and Victoria 2 isn't out yet for us to know what it's going to be like, I think it's time for there to be a Rome expansion. The Alexander era and revised map are the clinchers for me. It would be awesome!

 

[anomanderus]

Considering HoI3 and EU3 have expansions, and Victoria 2 isn't out yet for us to know what it's going to be like, I think it's time for there to be a Rome expansion. The Alexander era and revised map are the clinchers for me. It would be awesome!

Kushan empire.

 

[unmerged(138116)]

The original EU Board Game was set in years 1492-1792. EU was always about Reneissance/Baroque/Classical era conquest, colonization and exploration. I think the optimal solution is for there to be a dedicated game for XIII-XV century Europe.

XI - XIV centuries: CK2
XV - XVII: Europa Universalis (4?)
XVIII - XIX: Mundi Universalis

 

[anomanderus]

XI - XIV centuries: CK2
XV - XVII: Europa Universalis (4?)
XVIII - XIX: Mundi Universalis

Or it could just be called Europa Dominatus.