• 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.
Well, people care alright. Actually buying the game is a different matter.

You can still find a good amount of seeders for the game on TPB and other engines so there are people that care even if they aren't paying for it.
 
As someone who owns EU2 and played it quite a lot in the past (including the most popular mods) I'd say it wasn't clear to me what the differences are between vanilla EU 2 and FTG. I had to so some intensive research in several threads and still I'm not sure I know all. A short fact sheet could have worked wonder. That way, many saw the screenshots and wondered whether this is EU2 remarketed or not.

Also, no Mac version, so no FtG for me :( (would still buy a Mac version..)
 
As someone who owns EU2 and played it quite a lot in the past (including the most popular mods) I'd say it wasn't clear to me what the differences are between vanilla EU 2 and FTG. I had to so some intensive research in several threads and still I'm not sure I know all. A short fact sheet could have worked wonder. That way, many saw the screenshots and wondered whether this is EU2 remarketed or not.

The 'short' fact sheet would have been very short indeed (Guess thats why they never had one). The game is essentially EXACTLY the same, with a few helpful notifiers, mapmodes and new sprites (amongst a few other things). Apparently its a modders dream though, if your into that.

Having said that, the notifiers are a real joy to have and make the game a more pleasant experience...now only if the revolt notifer could be fixed...
 
Last edited:
We never could come up with enough MP beta testers to make it really solid, so the one MP game that I know of decided to move back like Samorim said.
 
When we were trying to play it we had unexplainable crashes going on when connecting.
Me and 2 others all tried connecting to each other and it worked just fine when 1 to 1 but when someone created a game for more to join it would crash.

At the most we got maybe 6 players to connect and could play just fine, problem being we were 11 I think that were signed up for the game.

Now we could play Eu2 just fine aside from 2 people that seem to be having difficulties connecting to each other so it has to be a problem with FTG and not our connections. On the other hand if I play a local area game with a friend or so then Ftg gives me no trouble at all.
 
The conclusion we came to, almost exclusively from speculation, was that perhaps somehow 64-bit systems would choose to not co-operate. As monkii mentions, we did manage to set up a game for 7 people and it worked OK. But some 1-to-1 tests would still fail, despite both systems allegedly being 32-bit.

And it should be mentioned that MichaelM said that no modifications had been made to the MP part of EU2 when creating FTG, and all of the above players are in a lack of issues connecting with EU2.

We are basically at a loss. Perhaps with time and testing it can be determined which systems FTG handles in MP and which can not be handled.
 
I think FtG ran into two main problems:

1.) The Europa engine's focus on historical events means that once you've played a few games, you have an idea of what is coming (even if the AI doesn't pick the historical choice, you know a choice is coming). After a century, quite a few events make no sense whatsoever (even with AGCEEP). For all the flaws of the Clauswitz engine, the fact that the game focuses on plausibility over historicity makes the game feel more reactive to the player. Many players had no desire to move back to the Europa engine's feeling of being somewhat on rails. The FtG feature set didn't appear to fix this feeling (at least, not to me).

2.) Many players that were annoyed with the vagueness and sameness of EU3 vanilla have gravitated to Magna Mundi (and later MEIOU). In my mind, Magna Mundi is really FtG's most direct competitor, and it doesn't help that MM is now going to be a stand alone game (probably now even getting to take advantage of Divine Wind's enhanced feature set).

Personally, I'm just done with the EU2 experience. EU3 killed it for me - I prefer the Clauswitz engine's assessment of current events. FtG just didn't manage to bring me back, though the UI improvements were really good. I really wanted it to, though, and I may pick up the demo again one day and try again.
 
I think FtG ran into two main problems:

1.) The Europa engine's focus on historical events means that once you've played a few games, you have an idea of what is coming (even if the AI doesn't pick the historical choice, you know a choice is coming). After a century, quite a few events make no sense whatsoever (even with AGCEEP). For all the flaws of the Clauswitz engine, the fact that the game focuses on plausibility over historicity makes the game feel more reactive to the player. Many players had no desire to move back to the Europa engine's feeling of being somewhat on rails. The FtG feature set didn't appear to fix this feeling (at least, not to me).

2.) Many players that were annoyed with the vagueness and sameness of EU3 vanilla have gravitated to Magna Mundi (and later MEIOU). In my mind, Magna Mundi is really FtG's most direct competitor, and it doesn't help that MM is now going to be a stand alone game (probably now even getting to take advantage of Divine Wind's enhanced feature set).

Personally, I'm just done with the EU2 experience. EU3 killed it for me - I prefer the Clauswitz engine's assessment of current events. FtG just didn't manage to bring me back, though the UI improvements were really good. I really wanted it to, though, and I may pick up the demo again one day and try again.

how do you make comments like this when you do not even have FTG ??

I have both and the fact is that FTG is vastly superior in graphics ( and Paradox knew this) and gameplay , it has better AI than what EU3 has, but , because Eu2 required greater program knowledge which Paradox could not affort, they opted for a CIV style cheapo type of game for Eu3 , which was inferior.

Paradox's fear is that FTG is approaching HTTT game standard in options etc etc available for the player , so will they support it. I doubt it as it will make the EU3 series reduntant.

As regards historical, you are wrong FTG is not Historical, it has a standard non historical game with nations that even AGCEEP does not have. FTG does have 5 or 6 mods attached ( with AGCEEP being one) which can be played. So if you dislike historical, play the vanilla , the AI is far far superior than what you get in EU3.

As i stated , I have both ( EU3 and FTG ), played both and to me EU3 is vastly inferior to FTG, graphically and gameplay. Maybe its because EU3 belongs in the crappy CIV look alike, play style series that I find bad. matter of fact, was the programmer for EU3 an ex CIV programmer, the games do look very similar.
 
1.) I played the demo through a couple of runthroughs. That would, of course, be the point of the demo - to play the game and get hooked. I'm merely explaining my thoughts on the matter. I also played EU2 and EU3 both for a long time. (I indirectly alluded to this when I said I'd probably pick the demo up again.)

2.) Your beliefs for Paradox's motives are flat wrong. EU3 was designed as it was largely to resolve complaints of how EU2's events quickly started to make little sense given the result of even less than a century of gameplay, and that the hard-coded historicity led to playing based on events you knew you would happen (getting Gustavus Adolphus or Suleiman, for example). The 3D graphics were chosen to free up processor power for the game (so that the graphics could be offloaded to the graphics card). While I agree with you that the FtG map is better looking than the EU3 vanilla map, the EU3 map is probably still far easier to customize and make changes to (it took years and a LOT of work for any EU2 mapmods, hours for EU3). I personally use the Hand Drawn Map for EU3, and it's beautiful, as are the maps and UIs for MM and MEIOU.

3.) As I understood the events from the demo, the nonhistorical game still uses the same event methodology, with a historical option and then a lower likelihood that the AI picks a non-historical option. I played AGCEEP extensively, and while having more and better events was certainly cooler for a while, it didn't change the fact that the events fire on or around the same time, for the same reasons, and after a while you know they're coming.

4.) Johan was the lead dev for EU1, EU2, and EU3, and he can't go back to EU2 either.

Thankfully, I know that most of the other folks on this forum are great folks, so I'm not put off by your rudeness. FtG seems to have a niche for players that preferred EU2 to EU3, and didn't migrate over to MM. Had MM not taken off (with the eventual release of MM as a standalone), I think FtG would have more players, but I'm not so sure that it would have sold significantly more copies.

That's just my analysis, knowing what I know of being around mulitple forums for years.
 
1.) I played the demo through a couple of runthroughs. That would, of course, be the point of the demo - to play the game and get hooked. I'm merely explaining my thoughts on the matter. I also played EU2 and EU3 both for a long time. (I indirectly alluded to this when I said I'd probably pick the demo up again.)

2.) Your beliefs for Paradox's motives are flat wrong. EU3 was designed as it was largely to resolve complaints of how EU2's events quickly started to make little sense given the result of even less than a century of gameplay, and that the hard-coded historicity led to playing based on events you knew you would happen (getting Gustavus Adolphus or Suleiman, for example). The 3D graphics were chosen to free up processor power for the game (so that the graphics could be offloaded to the graphics card). While I agree with you that the FtG map is better looking than the EU3 vanilla map, the EU3 map is probably still far easier to customize and make changes to (it took years and a LOT of work for any EU2 mapmods, hours for EU3). I personally use the Hand Drawn Map for EU3, and it's beautiful, as are the maps and UIs for MM and MEIOU.

3.) As I understood the events from the demo, the nonhistorical game still uses the same event methodology, with a historical option and then a lower likelihood that the AI picks a non-historical option. I played AGCEEP extensively, and while having more and better events was certainly cooler for a while, it didn't change the fact that the events fire on or around the same time, for the same reasons, and after a while you know they're coming.

4.) Johan was the lead dev for EU1, EU2, and EU3, and he can't go back to EU2 either.

Thankfully, I know that most of the other folks on this forum are great folks, so I'm not put off by your rudeness. FtG seems to have a niche for players that preferred EU2 to EU3, and didn't migrate over to MM. Had MM not taken off (with the eventual release of MM as a standalone), I think FtG would have more players, but I'm not so sure that it would have sold significantly more copies.

That's just my analysis, knowing what I know of being around mulitple forums for years.

as for your comment #1 - FTG is not EU2, FTG is far far superior in AI and ability to conduct war , this only refers to 1.2 version as that was what was mostly fixed.

your comment #2 - we agree that its simpler to amend EU3 than FTG in regards graphics. Simpler but uglier.

your comment #3 - I wanted the vanilla to have a minimum of events to keep it far less historical and hence make the 1.2V AI conduct a better war, but others wanted to place some AGCEEP events in. While these modders where correct for V1.0 and 1.1 , I feel V1.2 did not need these events. Time will tell on who is correct.

your comment #4 - you are correct, although he can come up with EU4 as I feel EU3 has run out of legs with divine wind.

your comment #5 - The rudeness is from you to me in that your "grey" stand iriitates me immensly , while my black or white comments annoys you. We can agree to be different.
Is this rudeness or do we all have to be sheep and not utter our beliefs in the 21st century.
Maybe the difference is that Australians are far freer in society to make comments than what Americans can, who knows !
 
as for your comment #1 - FTG is not EU2, FTG is far far superior in AI and ability to conduct war , this only refers to 1.2 version as that was what was mostly fixed.

I realise FTG is not EU2, but the demo I played seemed to retain several things that annoyed me about it when I left it to play EU3. FtG just didn't captivate me - which is not saying that it is bad.

your comment #4 - you are correct, although he can come up with EU4 as I feel EU3 has run out of legs with divine wind.

Maybe. People thought that with IN and HTTT. And I think MM will be a very interesting release.

your comment #5 - The rudeness is from you to me in that your "grey" stand iriitates me immensly , while my black or white comments annoys you. We can agree to be different.
Is this rudeness or do we all have to be sheep and not utter our beliefs in the 21st century.
Maybe the difference is that Australians are far freer in society to make comments than what Americans can, who knows !

My original post was merely an expression of my thoughts as to why FtG has a small community. It was not directed at you - if it irritated you, I apologize.

In response, your very first sentance essentially accused me of making stuff up, and your further statements went on to trash the company that licensed the engine used for FtG and make factually incorrect statements (based on no evidence) about their motives and experience. You're certainly entitled to express your opinion, but your post came off as insulting and rude for no real apparent reason.
 
The conclusion we came to, almost exclusively from speculation, was that perhaps somehow 64-bit systems would choose to not co-operate. As monkii mentions, we did manage to set up a game for 7 people and it worked OK. But some 1-to-1 tests would still fail, despite both systems allegedly being 32-bit.

And it should be mentioned that MichaelM said that no modifications had been made to the MP part of EU2 when creating FTG, and all of the above players are in a lack of issues connecting with EU2.

We are basically at a loss. Perhaps with time and testing it can be determined which systems FTG handles in MP and which can not be handled.

1º Michael says there wasnt any change for multiplayer but i recall Yoda saying he did change some stuff. And it is obvious that a lot of stuff was changed.
2º You want a tip - the entire crashing issues was related with the redistributable which was needed to play the game. The 64 bit version often conflicts with the 32 bit version.

As for all the crap naggy, i dont really know why is MM FTG's most direct competitor IF IT ISNT EVEN OUT. It is almost one year since FTG has been out and there is no sign of MM in the market yet.

The real problem was that FTG came just too late, and with real few new additions which could be seen in a mere glance of an eye. The advertisement was also extremely poor. Paradox did advertise Arsenal of Democracy but FTG received little if none advertisement at all. And there is also the fact that if EU3 is out, why should people buy an improved version of EU2?

But the most direct competitor of FTG was definetely Paradox Interactive. Yep. They wanted FTG to be their chicken of the golden eggs, but no chicken will lay eggs if it isnt properly fed.

You doubt that, you check the sticky regarding the "Information about For The Glory". I still remember people asking, "so what is new after all?".
 
As for all the crap naggy, i dont really know why is MM FTG's most direct competitor IF IT ISNT EVEN OUT. It is almost one year since FTG has been out and there is no sign of MM in the market yet.

There is still the mod, which is still pretty popular despite having no updates since a little after HTTT came out.

I agree about the informational post from Paradox. It was quite underwhelming.
 
I realise FTG is not EU2, but the demo I played seemed to retain several things that annoyed me about it when I left it to play EU3. FtG just didn't captivate me - which is not saying that it is bad.



Maybe. People thought that with IN and HTTT. And I think MM will be a very interesting release.



My original post was merely an expression of my thoughts as to why FtG has a small community. It was not directed at you - if it irritated you, I apologize.

In response, your very first sentance essentially accused me of making stuff up, and your further statements went on to trash the company that licensed the engine used for FtG and make factually incorrect statements (based on no evidence) about their motives and experience. You're certainly entitled to express your opinion, but your post came off as insulting and rude for no real apparent reason.

no problems with comments above last paragraph, but I trash any company that fails to support its own product. Its like GM bringing a model out , selling it and not supporting this model. what does that say about the company?

I can understand on why Paradox moved away from EU2 graphics and go to an easier and cheaper ( in programming) version with EU3, but its bascially askew between map and moveable graphics, . Its plain ugly and basically unplayable to select icons. I prefer to have symbols for infantry, cavaly etc etc than this mess of movement. Also the layout is inferior.
Oh well, some people do not know they are on a good thing , like the company that made heroes 3, when they went to heroes 4, they went broke.

I did not intend to offend you, I was only trying to point out that EU2 is different from FTG v 1.0 and 1.1 AND different from FTG v1.2.
Actually you should read comments on players who have 1.2 , veterans , who have seen a major change in the AI
 
Few people apart from those who frequent these forums and the other EU3 communities spread over the internet actually know of MM existence.

And the majority of the consumers that go to the local shop and buy the EU3 packed game are not aware of it, so i would not say that people that buy EU3 merely buy it due to MM. Chances are, that most of the consumers that buy EU3 do not even try MM.

Therefore, i honestly doubt MM was actually FTG's worst nightmare.