NikkTheTrick said:
Could you elaborate on those?
- Graphics... I've never been into Paradox games for graphics. The graphics are not bad, but not top either. Neither are graphics too good in GalCiv 2... Grpahics are generally a lower priority in strategy games.
- AI maddening and ruining games... How exactly is it doing that? Is it because it invades you when your war exhaustion is high? Is it because they do not accept every vassalization proposal you give them?
- Engine lags... What exactly do you mean by top of the line computer. Mine is definitely not and EU3 is not lagging.
As far as the lagging, I think its a Mac port issue.
I'm not into Paradox games for the graphics either, but I'd at least like the map to look nice. When Paradox made the transistion to 3D I expected a professional job, not something that looks good for 1998.
As far as the AI, you are just being ridiclous in your feigned ignorance and self-flattering in your idiotic examples. In my final game as France I was in a war with Spain (who had no allies), and conquered all of the Spanish Netherlands as well as ALL of Iberia (minus Portugal). They controlled none of my provinces. That gave me a warscore of 67%, which is lame in itself for such a devastating victory, but moreover the only peace offers I would get from the AI were for a white peace.
Is that WAD? Seriously? Johan tried to make this game harder than EUII, but instead of doing that by improving the AI, he instead gave the AI so many cheats so as to make everything basically free, and made it insanely obstinante at the negotiating table. That is not skilled programming or design. I'm sorry man, I love you for EUII and Victoria, but you really really dropped the ball on your flagship title.
Moreover, I think Johan's similar attitude in this thread is a major part of the problem. Many companies pay good money to collect information on how their loyal customers feel about their products. Johan gets it for free and yet, or perhaps precisely for that reason, acts dismissive.