Why play EU1 instead of EU2?

[Lord E]

Re: I have all three paradox games installed.

Originally posted by PriestOfDiscord
Each one has a place on my hard drive.
HOI is a fantastic grand strategy game for the World War II period.
EU II is a masterpeice. It had everything EU I lacked to make it a true classic of historical simulation.
EU I is my sandbox. I have the files so brutally modded to make absoultely no historical sense, but it's fun to screw around with. No historical IGC, just some off the wall modding that I tweak whenever I warm up the original
-Got sick of Spain automatically winning no matter what every single game, so I modded the leaders and monarchs to horrible stats, gave them silly names, and now Spain gets swallowed by all its neighbors.
-Gave the Hanseatic League a new Immortal Monarch with 9-9-9 stats (The Cult of Hansa ) with an absurd amount of monarch events tied to it, and it always overruns all of germany and most of russia and North Europe.
-Sibir and Nubia fight for dominance of the Arabic world!
-The united Kingdom of Scotland!
-An abusrdly rich and powerful portugal!
-and much much worse!

It has it's own place in my heart. I hardly ever play it, but when I do I always get a nice laugh out of it.

Sounds great and I think we all agree on that EUI has a special place in our heart

 

[unmerged(7347)]

Re: I have all three paradox games installed.

Originally posted by PriestOfDiscord
Each one has a place on my hard drive...

This guy seems to have the ability to see things from a objective point of view... Get him!!!!

 

[unmerged(7365)]

RM's Better in first game!

RMs were much better in EU than EU2. In EU2 RM is worthless! I liked being able to randomly inherit a country. That needs to come back! Also there are too many events in EU2. They need to cut the events to like half what they have now and make more of them available to everyone as random.

If I wanted real history I would read a book...

 

[Carolus Rex]

Re: RM's Better in first game!

Originally posted by Penultimate
RMs were much better in EU than EU2. In EU2 RM is worthless!

Eh, nooooo.

 

[Kasperus]

hmm, I can think of another important reason why NOT to play EU1 instead of EU2... For EU1 I needed to insert the cd to play which was damn irritating as I always put cd`s - audio or games - in the 1st best box that lays in vicinity, resulting in one big mess and hours of stress while searching the darn disk the next time.
In EU2 though cd is only needed for installation...
(which is btw only the luxury for the players who own european versions)

 

[unmerged(10894)]

EU2 has too many events that destabilize the country. It's to hard to keep the country stable. However, EU2 is great if you play Portugal.

 

[Hrv123]

Simply, dont !

get EU2.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by Bocaj
EU2 has too many events that destabilize the country. It's to hard to keep the country stable. However, EU2 is great if you play Portugal.

Ah, yeah, we all know those things didn't happend during those ages.

 

[unmerged(739)]

Whoever said that EUII has too many events must be mentally 'challenged'.

Honestly, EUII is by far the better game. Hands down.

Also people in the EUII forums don't use an obscene amount of smilies and punctuation marks.

 

[Kasperus]

the only comclusion possible once you played eu2 is that eu1 really lacked the event-engine. But indeed, some events in eu2 are making it slightly less realistic.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by Kasperus
the only comclusion possible once you played eu2 is that eu1 really lacked the event-engine. But indeed, some events in eu2 are making it slightly less realistic.

Yeah, but what about the number of events that make it more realistic?

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex
Yeah, but what about the number of events that make it more realistic?

Actually I seem to recall that my eu1-games developed much more often historically than my eu2 games. Ottomasn always annexed Mamellukes, Russia always colonized Siberia, Spain conquered the aztecs and Inca`s.... Of course, that could have been due to the undecision of the 1419 situation in which eu2 starts (I don`t play 1492 in eu2 so cannot compare that).
Perhaps the fact that you get additional cores only through events now is the cause for that development?
Further - well, the randomevents didn`t make it more realistic. It is still quite weird when you get stabhit beacuse a noble was killed in a country like the Ottomans or tribal Indians who didn`t have aristocracy irl... Or meteors coming down every 30 years or so...

 

[unmerged(10894)]

And the amount of RE can make it very hard to keep stability up. Also I have found that most of the RE's are bad for the country, not good.

And the games dont turn out very historically. For instance, I played France and saved the game. Next session I played Portugal but then I changed my mind and wanted to play France. But seeing i had played Portugal, Portugal came up on the French game. It had found Indonesia with NOTHING i.e. TP colonies along the way. It was only the year 1452!!!

 

[unmerged(7365)]

The problem I have with the events is that they restrict the game too much. More randomness and player driven events are needed.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by Kasperus
Actually I seem to recall that my eu1-games developed much more often historically than my eu2 games. Ottomasn always annexed Mamellukes, Russia always colonized Siberia, Spain conquered the aztecs and Inca`s.... Of course, that could have been due to the undecision of the 1419 situation in which eu2 starts (I don`t play 1492 in eu2 so cannot compare that).
Perhaps the fact that you get additional cores only through events now is the cause for that development?
Further - well, the randomevents didn`t make it more realistic. It is still quite weird when you get stabhit beacuse a noble was killed in a country like the Ottomans or tribal Indians who didn`t have aristocracy irl... Or meteors coming down every 30 years or so...

1419 is a bitch to simulate, but from what I've seen, 1492 gets it just as historical as EU1 did.

 

[Owl]

Originally posted by Penultimate
The problem I have with the events is that they restrict the game too much. More randomness and player driven events are needed.

I agree, I'd like the events engine to respond to what has happened in the game and not try to haul the game back onto the same track that "real" history took.

[Wierd dreamlike feeling, returning to the EU1 forum - like the old school playground - who are all these new kids?]

 

[unmerged(7347)]

In Eu 1 you could choose wether you wanted random events or not. This is not possible in the EU 2, right!? I would have prefered if EU 2 had a option where you could choose wether you wanted a lot of random events, some random events or only historical events. That makes EU 1 somewhat superior, as you atleast have a option to choose...

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by Yoghurt
In Eu 1 you could choose wether you wanted random events or not. This is not possible in the EU 2, right!? I would have prefered if EU 2 had a option where you could choose wether you wanted a lot of random events, some random events or only historical events. That makes EU 1 somewhat superior, as you atleast have a option to choose...

yep, the lack of that option is irritating.
Otoh you can delete the events you don`t want manually.

 

[saskganesh]

im starting to waiver...maybe i would like all those EU2 events. i play with all events on all the time.

 

[unmerged(10894)]

Originally posted by saskganesh
im starting to waiver...maybe i would like all those EU2 events. i play with all events on all the time.

I thought I did too, but if I had of known the full extent of it, NO.