• 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.

unmerged(2514)

Corporal
Mar 31, 2001
26
0
Visit site
Just wondering I`m tired of getting nonsensical if not impossible monarch missions but I was told that the random missions are important and historical only is boring?

Do you find historical only boring and what would I be missing if I gave the random the heave ho?

Thanks in advance...
 
Historical events, when you put them on, will always appear (religion, goodies from good monarchs). It is boring 'cause you know what will be the future (Reform, calvinism, Edict of tolerance, etc.) But to simulate history, it is a must.

Random events are...random :) So, you don't know when they appear and you don't know if they will have a negative or a positive impact on your country. Random events add difficulty if you consider you will have bad events (even if you have good things too).

I played one time with random events and I did not like.
 
Random missions are a nuisance, when you have no Austria in HRE and you're playing portugal, it doesn't make sense...
But they're separate from the random events. They can be fun regarding the luck you have...
 
You appear to have mixed up events and missions. By all means turn off the missions, since they're nearly always either stupidly easy, or impossible. :D

Random/historical EVENTS I recommend you use, since they add quite a bit to the game. Historical ones depend on the quality of your current monarch (Elizabeth I of England good: Time of Troubles in Russia bad :D ) Random ones can do pretty much anything, at any time, so they add variety to the game and stop it from being just a routine procession of annexing provinces.
 
I don't think they makes the game so easy. My speciallity is too have my research in infra divided by too two or three times in a row just before obtaining tech 5...
It has happened to my 3 times in 5 GC.

Maybe I shouldn't have been rude with that voodoo.
 
Originally posted by BiB
The random events are crap IMO :D Makes the game ridiculously easy in soem ways (yes there are bad events but they don't weigh up IMO)

I disagree here. The bad random events are brutal in some cases. A large empire that suffers -3 stability is going to have some real rebel probs for a long time. I lost my whole French fleet just as I was going to invade England. Of course this is MHO.
 
Originally posted by BiB
Hey, I did say some were bad :D But that doesn't weigh up IMO :D Anyway, they make the game less historic so even for that I don't use them.

Ok it's less historic, but it add some surprises, mostly bad surprises. But if you are too lucky, they can help you too much at the beginning of the game.
 
Originally posted by BiB
Hey, I did say some were bad :D But that doesn't weigh up IMO :D Anyway, they make the game less historic so even for that I don't use them.

How, exactly, is knowing what's going to happen more historical than not being psychic? I don't recall any of Europe's rulers being blessed with second sight.
 
Originally posted by astafyr


Ok it's less historic, but it add some surprises, mostly bad surprises. But if you are too lucky, they can help you too much at the beginning of the game.

And it's in the beginning that the difference is made ;)
 
Originally posted by BiB


It's a game :D

So quit with the "historical" bullshit.
 
Many times I get so involved in the game that I forget when this or that ruler or event is about to come. So, yes we have insight, but we can also be surprised.

It's also a question of "getting in your character". When I play the Russian I am concerned mostly with expansion to the East, defending myself from the Poles and Swedes who love to spoil my perfect colonizing plans. Sure, if I grab some good maps I may colonize Africa or North America, but I never lose sight of my "real" interests.

That's probably the reason why I've never conquered the whole world!:D

And yes, I only use historical events.