Europa Universalis I, II or III?

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

EU3 has certain 'historical' events that pop up when the real historical (shit, forgot the word. values, demands?) for them have been reached. Like The Netherlands only forming when the provinces are united, etc. EU2 was more forced and thus had 'historical' events popping up that made no sense what so ever in the gameworld of the game you were playing. It really tended to railroad the game and often looked rather silly. I guess it's just a matter of preference though.

Yeah, and as EU3 now has many of those events as decisions for which you see the requirements and benefits instead of having to search game files to see them, it means more player control.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Yes, but it is only worthwhile with the two expansions. Or EU3 complete. EU3 by itself is inferior to EU2.

 

[Serus]

Yes, but it is only worthwhile with the two expansions. Or EU3 complete. EU3 by itself is inferior to EU2.

I agree. EU3 1.x is bad, however comparing EU3 without expansions with last official version of EU2 (or with EU2 + AGCEEP) makes no sense. EU3 IN is much better than EU2 in almost every aspect (except maybe graphics, map in EU2 has certain "feel" EU3 is lacking).


Hmm, i'm curious what DarkUnderlord have to say about Paradox, they call their patches "expansions" and sell them. That's worse than CDProjekt.

 

[Witchblade]

As for myself, I ordered the EU2 and Two Thrones, because I'd already set my mind on the idea now, but they had run out of stock. Now I'll have to wait at least a week for it. Ah, well.
Lots of other gaming to catch up with.
Anyway, all the input is very useful. I'm going to be watching the EU3 Complete's price, and I'll snatch it when the price comes down.

 

[Witchblade]

Hmm, i'm curious what DarkUnderlord have to say about Paradox, they call their patches "expansions" and sell them. That's worse than CDProjekt.

Let's be fair to CDProjekt. They did offer their Witcher Enhanced content as a free download.

 

[kghy]

EU3 has certain 'historical' events that pop up when the real historical (shit, forgot the word. values, demands?) for them have been reached. Like The Netherlands only forming when the provinces are united, etc.

But how do the Netherlands ever get united if the country occupying them doesn't get an event for Dutch revolts? Serious question, EU3 might not be that bad if they actually found something workable for these kinds of things.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

EU3 has certain 'historical' events that pop up when the real historical (shit, forgot the word. values, demands?) for them have been reached. Like The Netherlands only forming when the provinces are united, etc.

But how do the Netherlands ever get united if the country occupying them doesn't get an event for Dutch revolts? Serious question, EU3 might not be that bad if they actually found something workable for these kinds of things.

If you are a minor, say brabant or someone, and Austria owns the province (more likely France though....) you can pay for rebellions to happen by using your spies. Or you can take the provinces and declare yourself the Netherlands. Or the Netherlands can be made as part of a peace deal through a war involving the current owner. The owner might be a rotten overlord and the revolt risk rises, or be too long in a war and the rr rises. etc.

Probably others ways that I have not thought of.

 

[Witchblade]

Hey, guys, this is starting to sound pretty cool! I was originally not quite sure what to expect, I had always thought that this game is something like Civ, and I wasn't aware of how the "history" mechanic worked.

So with this game, you actually have to "fit in" with the broader history criteria? Sounds like a nice change from simply conquering the world - conquer the world within the broad framework of history?

I'm more used to RTS games in this regard, where one follows a historical campaign, with the scenarios being a win or lose situation, to represent battles from history.
The way it sounds as if this specific Grand Strategy is played out, is almost a similar thing, yet you have more freedom (on a grand scale) in how you achieve it..

 

[kghy]

So with this game, you actually have to "fit in" with the broader history criteria? Sounds like a nice change from simply conquering the world - conquer the world within the broad framework of history?

It's probably a bit (lot?) looser in EU3, but the way EU2 generally keeps you in line is through national provinces. You can still say conquer german provinces as the netherlands, but it will destroy your relations with other countries making things pretty hard if you're a minor.

It's an okay system in that it does force you to work on diplomacy a lot more, but it does have silly excesses like france getting opportunities to annex parts of germany and italy without suffering too much in her relations.

 

[Tigranes]

You can go wild and do completely random stuff if you want. But especially in EU2, if you wanted to be historical you would be rewarded and see a lot of cool stuff.

Basically, if you want to play historically, EU2 + AGCEEP is the way to go. There are hundreds of historical events that throw you historical situations and also recognise when you act 'historically'. EU3 and such all have stuff like realising you have united Italy and turning your Milan into Italy, of course.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

(except maybe graphics, map in EU2 has certain "feel" EU3 is lacking)

While the original graphics of EU3 are butt-ugly, there are mods, like this hand-drawn map mod (screenshot of my Novgorod game, diplomatic map mode. Terrain map mode looks kind of better but there I always forget where my borders are.) http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l199/ ... 1233234775

But how do the Netherlands ever get united if the country occupying them doesn't get an event for Dutch revolts? Serious question, EU3 might not be that bad if they actually found something workable for these kinds of things.

EU3 gets ahistorical really, really fast. Netherlands won't usually rebel, but neither will Burgundy exist for more than a few decades since it has the misfortune of having land border with France. Neither will Austria or Castille/Spain usually have any presence in the area. Well, unless you start at a late enough date that those have already happened. Generally it's pretty rare to see nations such as United States breaking off of their overlords, since while there are rebellions, they aren't strong or coordinated enough to win against the colossal empires that will inevitably form during the grand campaign. That's actually my biggest beef with the game, that the rebellions are still so pitiful. They should at least recruit more troops in the provinces they occupy, or something like that.

It's not so much a historical simulator as a sandbox strategy game with historical starting positions, anyway. A good multiplayer game, I'm told.

If you want a more historical game, I'd recommend Victoria + expansion over the Europa Universalis series. Still the best RTS game I have played.

 

[kghy]

If you want a more historical game, I'd recommend Victoria + expansion over the Europa Universalis series. Still the best RTS game I have played.

Victoria + revolutions is awesome but I'm not so sure that it's necessarily a more historical game than AGCEEP. For instance, I think I've never had a grand campaign where Germany is formed, which means WW1 never happens.

It was the reason I upgraded to revolutions in the first place and by the looks of the script they made the event-chain leading up to ze German Reich only more impossibly complex for the AI to live up to. Fucking around with your population and your economy is still a lot of fun though.

Anyway, I haven't heard anyone rant about EU1 being the real shit and us all being console kiddies for playing the dumbed down sequels. Anybody know if that game's any good?

 

[Serus]

(except maybe graphics, map in EU2 has certain "feel" EU3 is lacking)

While the original graphics of EU3 are butt-ugly, there are mods, like this hand-drawn map mod (screenshot of my Novgorod game, diplomatic map mode. Terrain map mode looks kind of better but there I always forget where my borders are.) http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l199/ ... 1233234775

But how do the Netherlands ever get united if the country occupying them doesn't get an event for Dutch revolts? Serious question, EU3 might not be that bad if they actually found something workable for these kinds of things.

EU3 gets ahistorical really, really fast. Netherlands won't usually rebel, but neither will Burgundy exist for more than a few decades since it has the misfortune of having land border with France. Neither will Austria or Castille/Spain usually have any presence in the area. Well, unless you start at a late enough date that those have already happened. Generally it's pretty rare to see nations such as United States breaking off of their overlords, since while there are rebellions, they aren't strong or coordinated enough to win against the colossal empires that will inevitably form during the grand campaign. That's actually my biggest beef with the game, that the rebellions are still so pitiful. They should at least recruit more troops in the provinces they occupy, or something like that.

It's not so much a historical simulator as a sandbox strategy game with historical starting positions, anyway. A good multiplayer game, I'm told.

If you want a more historical game, I'd recommend Victoria + expansion over the Europa Universalis series. Still the best RTS game I have played.

Netherlands form in some games in others they dont.

Idea of "historical simulator" that follows history is SILLY by definition. Even if you force AI to play "historical", the player wont - after all we don't want to play a game to recreate history EXACTLY as it happened but to change it - making things ahistorical very fast.
EU2 tries to solve this problem by making "historical" events happen in alternative history situations - making them completly illogical.
"Historical" games only make sense if:
A) only starting situation is correct, a "sandbox" game like EU3
or
B) game only simulates a short period of time and player can only change a little (like playing a tactical simulator of WW2 - you can win battles as Germany but still lose the war - perfectly historical because a small victory here and there is not changing much).
or
C) game only simulates a short period of time and only a few "what-if" outcomes are possible, the number of possible outcomes becomes quikcly too big so it is almost impossible to achieve (Paradox is trying this in Hearts of Iron series)

I don't understand how a semi-inelligent person can think that history will follow "historical" and only "correct" path when ahistorical choices are possible (and they must be - if not it's not a game but interactive history book).

 

[Witchblade]

Idea of "historical simulator" that follows history is SILLY by definition. Even if you force AI to play "historical", the player wont - after all we don't want to play a game to recreate history EXACTLY as it happened but to change it - making things ahistorical very fast.
EU2 tries to solve this problem by making "historical" events happen in alternative history situations - making them completly illogical.
"Historical" games only make sense if:
A) only starting situation is correct, a "sandbox" game like EU3
or
B) game only simulates a short period of time and player can only change a little (like playing a tactical simulator of WW2 - you can win battles as Germany but still lose the war - perfectly historical because a small victory here and there is not changing much).
or
C) game only simulates a short period of time and only a few "what-if" outcomes are possible, the number of possible outcomes becomes quikcly too big so it is almost impossible to achieve (Paradox is trying this in Hearts of Iron series)

I don't understand how a semi-inelligent person can think that history will follow "historical" and only "correct" path when ahistorical choices are possible (and they must be - if not it's not a game but interactive history book).

Yes, this is exactly why I didn't 'get' how they would manage to keep the game "true to history'' in a grand strategy game such as this.

There are many pre-scripted RTS games, where you can play a pre-scripted campaign, with your side being the side of the historical victor, and so upon your victory - it will automatically co-incide with history in broad terms, and you can continue with the campaign.

However, these kinds of campaigns tend to be more of a pure military nature, and I'd like to do something more in the grand strategy sense now, where diplomacy and empire-building from a greater strategic point of view is involved.

Of course, it is nice to look at it from the "what if" point of view - such as "what if " such and such had not formed an alliance with such and such in reality, what would have happened then?
If the game starts the player off with the situation as it had really been at some point in history, he could then explore all the "what if" possibilities.

This is what it sounds to me was the intention in EU3.

 

[kghy]

a bunch of stuff

A LITERALLY historical game is impossible? no shit sherlock, if not by AI/player behavior then by game mechanics (huge standing armies in the 15th century, oh my!). But you're still not giving any examples of illogical events in EU2 so I can't figure out your gripe. If you're argument is really solely that because "pure" historical accuracy isn't possible games shouldn't attempt it at all then that's fine. You can play your generic sandbox game and other people can oggle blocks of text like a bunch of history geeks.

 

[Tigranes]

basically there are two kinds of 'historical realism';

1> A game which starts you off in historically accurate conditions, then for the first few decades, has AI countries behave generally realistically (i.e. Austria expands, Burgundy and France don't like each other)

2> A game which does <1>, but then also tries to encourage AI and the player to develop in historical ways (e.g. triggers for certain wars or historically significant events like assassinations and diplomatic agreements)

All EU do the former; AGCEEP does the latter awesomely. It's not quite pre-scripted, but it rewards you for following history. (Doesn't mean you have to, I don't know, LOSE as Austria...)

 

[Serus]

a bunch of stuff

A LITERALLY historical game is impossible? no shit sherlock, if not by AI/player behavior then by game mechanics (huge standing armies in the 15th century, oh my!). But you're still not giving any examples of illogical events in EU2 so I can't figure out your gripe. If you're argument is really solely that because "pure" historical accuracy isn't possible games shouldn't attempt it at all then that's fine. You can play your generic sandbox game and other people can oggle blocks of text like a bunch of history geeks.

Sherlock ? Holmes ? One of my favourite fictional characters. Thank you.