Just that Paradox isn’t always the best at fully implementing new systems and making sure they work with existing systems. Usually there are unintended consequences in the details of individual systems that create serious imbalances. After an expansion or two most of it is figured out though.
… which is why Europa Universalis: Rome was one of the best games they’ve made. It was a slight thing without a ton of features, but it did those features well. It wasn’t a game where anyone can beat anybody, it was a game where Rome would inevitably dominate the Mediterranean. Basically everything good that’s come from Paradox since then can be traced back to EU:Rome (imo).
I’m also a fan of Rome, I wish they would do a sequel. Especially with their experience with CK2 I could see EU:RomeII being really cool.
Paradox have said Rome II is basically never going to happen because Rome sold like ass. That said, I would like to see at least a Rome CK2 DLC where you control a patrician family in the republic.
I hated Rome. I really enjoyed CK2 for awhile though and EU3 was fun for months. I am not sure about EU4 though… might wait and see on it.
Thats not really true. Don’t know who said that actually. Rome sold rather well for us and we definitely want to make a sequel one day.
I’d personally like to see a completely new title next. With the current titles they have the majority of world history already covered (except modern history, but that is partially made up with the East vs. West game), but I am sure they are clever enough to come up with something.
Back on topic, I am really looking forward to Europa Universalis IV, EU3 was such a brilliant game and I feel bad that I got hundreds of hours out of it for only $15. With all the hands-on previews, dev diaries, and gameplay vids (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlcscBCW4DQ), it looks like they have made something even more special.
From Shams saying that the people wanting Rome II are just a ‘vocal minority’ and that “I don’t think there are enough supporters out there to justify making a Rome II” . Saying PDS would need something like a kickstarter to get R2 off the ground is not very encouraging.
I think it would be great. Expand on the family dynamics of CK2 with a dash of EU series and I’d be all over it.
The EU2 forums still exist, and a quick browse would suggest that they weren’t “filled with players asking for help with technical issues”. I’ve been a member over there since 2002, but started reading it in 2000 fwiw.
As for:
Trade - not broken, just badly balanced
Manpower - not broken
Bad boy - not obtuse or broken
Hard coded events - hardly inane since they were one of the largest draws for the EU series (and something that was bitterly complained about by fans in relation to EU3).
You mention that EU2 puts the player in control of a country and they can outstrip their historical performance, but this was only kinda of true.
No, it was completely true. Events created difficulties, events never made it impossible to outstrip historical performance.
The event system meant that no matter what actions the player made certain events would fire no matter how out of place they were in the game. Spain would face a financial crises on the same date no matter how fine tuned I had the country humming at.
Not true, as stated by Dave, only a very limited amount of events ‘would fire no matter what’.
That was one of the big problems with the game.
No it wasn’t. If it was, the most popular mod wouldn’t have been AGCEEP (which both extended ahistorical events and historical events).
But again, going back to comparing launches, I think, and to Paradox’s credit, each iteration of all their series have had better launches than the previous (I don’t know about HOI). EU1 was a mess compared to EU2 at launch just as EU2 was a mess compared to EU3. EU2 was particularly choppy because the schizophrenia of the game design (keeping things on a historical path vs player freedom) was really apparent.
EU3 launch was far worse than EU2’s, the game was incredibly buggy and while technically playable, lacked so much content, systems and features that anyone I know who purchased it simply set it aside until at least the second expansion.
It’s obvious that you’re a huge fan of Paradox (and kudos on that), but almost nothing you’ve posted in this thread mesh with either my experiences, the experiences of friends, or what I’ve read on forums (both on PP and on various gaming fora).
That’s what I did, as well as implementing my “never buy a Paradox game at release” policy. It’s the backlash over games like EU3 that led them to vastly improve their QA, which is so much better now that I’ve now rescinded said policy (which I mentioned earlier). I have high hopes for EUIV, although I’m sure it will benefit from mods, patches, expansions, and community feedback.
The events were inane as they bore no reflection to the reality of the game. Instead they popped out of no where no matter what the conditions of the game itself was. I’d say that matches pretty close to the definition of inane. Yes the most popular mod adds events back in but I’d say most EU3 players don’t use it for good reason, it attempts to put ‘rails’ on development that can be easily circumvented once the various large events are memorized. I do think he mod community has made better strives than EU2 ever did, but EU2’s attempt at trying to force nations to adhere to historical events was basically the definition of nonsensical when the games would never be remotely close to historical reality.
Manpower had major problems in term off how it was repopulated to quickly allowing for rapid conquests and became a significant part of the ‘blue blog’ syndrome.
Badboy was completely obtuse, something Paradox has admitted. There was no clear information on BB except by using tool tips. It was a extremely important mechanism in the game that was basically hidden as much away as possible.
Trade was basically a easy get rich quick scheme particularly for any country that could have multiple COD’s. It essentially made countries with COD’s mints that any competent player could exploit to run roughshod over just about any other AI country.
These criticisms against EU2 aren’t exactly controversial. It was a game that was stuck between two impulses and was a worse game for it.
You might prefer the design decision in the earlier EU games compared to EU3, but EU3’s launch was at least functional and playable (I use pretty typical computer setups, not building my own or using crazy hardware or anything).
EDIT: I played EU3 from the beginning, and while I completely agree that the expansions were a great improvement, I never had a problem or saw imbalances (not to say there weren’t any) close to what I witnessed opening day of EU2.
Both myself and Dave Markell have already corrected you on that, yet you’re still posting the same incorrect information. All events had triggers, very VERY few were simply triggered by reaching ‘Date X’ or ‘Money Y’. How many times do we have to inform you of this before you stop using bad information to justify your opinion?
I’d also have to question the validity of your general critique on EU2 considering you’re making such basic flawed mistakes on one of its core mechanics!
I’d say that matches pretty close to the definition of inane.
Inane: lacking significance, meaning, or point
No, I’m pretty sure that events triggered by meeting several empire specific criteria that generally bear direct relevance to the events in game prior does not match pretty closely to the definition of inane.
Yes the most popular mod adds events back in but I’d say most EU3 players don’t use it for good reason
Yes, because AGCEEP was for EU2 - that’s a pretty good reason for EU3 players to be not using it.
it attempts to put ‘rails’ on development
There’s a difference between rails and guides. None of the countries in EU2 played as on rails. None came even close.
that can be easily circumvented once the various large events are memorized. I do think he mod community has made better strives than EU2 ever did, but EU2’s attempt at trying to force nations to adhere to historical events was basically the definition of nonsensical when the games would never be remotely close to historical reality.
Again, massively exaggerating the effects of events on countries.
Manpower had major problems in term off how it was repopulated to quickly allowing for rapid conquests and became a significant part of the ‘blue blog’ syndrome.
Nope.
Badboy was completely obtuse, something Paradox has admitted. There was no clear information on BB except by using tool tips. It was a extremely important mechanism in the game that was basically hidden as much away as possible.
For good reason. Badboy was a mechanism to replicate how human players would react to a war hungry country i.e., spurn diplomatic relations, declare war (if more powerful), vulture if country was already in a war. Making it completely obvious and in your face would have been a poor choice imho.
Trade was basically a easy get rich quick scheme particularly for any country that could have multiple COD’s. It essentially made countries with COD’s mints that any competent player could exploit to run roughshod over just about any other AI country.
Which isn’t ahistorical at all?
These criticisms against EU2 aren’t exactly controversial.
They’re hardly universal.
It was a game that was stuck between two impulses and was a worse game for it.
Non-sequitur.
You might prefer the design decision in the earlier EU games compared to EU3, but EU3’s launch was at least functional and playable (I use pretty typical computer setups, not building my own or using crazy hardware or anything).
So was EU2s? I mean, I can link you to the tech support of the PP forums if that helps? You know, the forum you said was full of people after launch - but which can be seen to be fairly quiet back at that time?
Oh God, I’m having flashbacks of the Six Year Paradox Forum War.
A lot of the event is EU 2 weren’t context sensitive. There is the famous case of Spain which has events for financial difficulties and civil wars that trigger no matter what the conditions of the country are.
So you agree that BB was obtuse? I mean it was all hidden away despite its importance to the player. The multiple new players I introduced to EU2 all complained about the lack of information regarding diplomacy and it all seemed to center on BB. Once you did recognize BB it was extraordinarily easy to game by simply not passing a artificial bar of BB and avoiding most of the negative repercussions. None of which was presented to the player without some deep digging.
You say “Nope” to my manpower argument, but I don’t find that very persuasive.
The trade system might have approximated historical reality (although I don’t agree with that) but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t incredibly broken. It basically turned the trade game into conquering CoT’s and then filling your CoT’s with your own merchants, something that doesn’t bare much resemblance to the historical reality I’m familiar with and makes for a system that can be easily gamed.
You seem to be saying that the systems approximate historical realities but the game itself almost never produced historical realities. I don’t and have never seen Paradox games as historical simulations. It’s a collection of game systems that are supposed to produce a fun and engaging game with historical verisimilitude. When those systems, no matter how close they might individually approach historical realities, imbalance the game to a great degree I consider that a broken system. I’m not arguing against the asymmetry of the game (I love that aspect) but I am saying that EU2 based those asymmetries on things not readily apparent to the player and, once mastered, easily gamed. Both hallmarks of poor system design in my opinion.
We can keep on going around and around on this but I think we’ve both made our points.
EDIT: Changed COD to CoT. Thank you Dave Markell for the correction.
No, that’s one of a tiny handful of mandatory events. The other major ones were the Treaty of Tordesillas and the Reformation. Three big events total is hardly “a lot”, and the Reformation at least absolutely had to happen. You’re so upset by this one event that you’re way overgeneralizing from it. And Paradox games are super easy to mod yourself. Don’t like an event? Delete it or change it, problem gone.
PS: It’s CoT, not CoD.
Wait a minute why should the onus be on me to correct their systems? I used Spain as a example, all the major countries had numerous hard coded events that almost never fit with the facts of the game as they were going on. I’m not upset about one event (I’m not upset with EU2 at all I love the game), I’m saying that they devised a system that was broken, from a gameplay perspective and from a verisimilitude perspective. It’s jarring to have a event pop up where you lose 5 stability for a reason that isn’t pertinent to your current game. Again I harped on Spain because I think it’s a good example of the problems. Russia would be another example that had particularly bad events hard coded in.
Thank you for the CoT correction, changing it now.
What I’m saying over and over, and what you aren’t hearing, is that these hard-coded unavoidable events you are so on about were miniscule in number. You’re way overstating their frequency and impact because, for whatever reason, they bugged you so much. Well, if they bug you, delete them and move on. There are so few that’s it’s literally a couple minutes’ work to wipe all of them. The “onus” is on you because you’re the one they bother.
I’m not the only one they bother as Paradox basically ditched that whole concept for EU3 and for EU4 seem to be devising a event system much more reflective of player choice. It would seem to be a ‘bother’ for the developers as well.
Small in number? Maybe for each individual country but all together they had a huge impact. Each of these hardcoded unavoidable events had huge repercussion and follow up events that also had huge repercussions. So for each country those events had a huge impact and then for the game all countries were hugely effected by the hardcoded events making the game extremely affected.
You seem to be taking umbrage that I am even criticizing the game in comparison to EU3, I think that says more about your personal presences than any sort of quality in my argument. You are basically agreeing with my point but saying that they didn’t bother you, well thats subjective and I’m providing a different take. As I’ve been saying repeatedly this just seems to keep on going around in circles. I’m happy to ride the carousel as much as you like.
No, I’m not agreeing with your point. I’m saying these events were so few in number that deleting/changing them was trivial. I know, because I changed a few that bugged me myself. The total number of MAJOR events that triggered no matter what was probably 3, spread across every nation in the game, and I played just about all of them (with the exception of some tiny HRE states, since they were so much alike and didn’t have many/any events anyway). Events that could be avoided by avoiding their triggers don’t count.