-
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.
I recall some discussion on this, but don't remember the outcome, and the search engine hasn't been working awfully well.
Last I recall the debate was whether it was going to be used by anyone more than once. Seems there were some for and some against. Some were afraid it would delay the release and were opposed on those grounds. However, no mention - official or otherwise - that it was going to be dropped.
do you really want it to be in?
Honestly, I couldn't care less - I know I won't be using it. These two games are absolutely different.
Honestly, I couldn't care less - I know I won't be using it. These two games are absolutely different.
I don't care either way. I just wanted to make sure that what I thought was going to happen was correct.
I thought the idea was vital. Often in EU2 your hands are tied by the screw-ups of previous rulers in the Middle Ages. I mean, limiting the Muslim nations by their placement in 1420? I'd like to play all the way from Hastings to Napoleon, myself, making history as I see fit. But that's my usual gripe: EU will only be abridged until you play from beginning to end of the age of empire. 1020 to 1920. Only way to do it.
Wow! Bet you can hardly wait for their release of "Downfall of Man" an exciting adventure where Abel tries to hide from Cain behind Eve's skirts only to be foiled because she has no clothes. And if you think some of the EU monarchs live long - just wait 'til you get Noah and Methusela!! Of course you would probably hope that Paradox's next game started IN the garden of Eden instead of after the fall. But hey, they gotta save something for the sequel.
Well, the clotheslessness came in handy for Cain when he got that nameless wife of his. After all, the supply of female humans was limited to Eve at the time.
Seriously, though, the EU2 model cannot really be applied for anything earlier than Sargon's Akkad, be it mythical or factual.
If this is going to delay the release significantly, I'd rather have the converter released in a future patch.
1920? Nah, all we need then is another Paradox game to span 1820-1936, and we can convert from CK to EU2 to new "Imperialism" game to HoI.
Woops. Wait. Then of course we'd need "Cold War" 1947-1990ish. And the fun could go on with CK2 (Carolingian Kings) & DA (Dark Ages). And then something to plug that gap we thought "Legion" would fill, and then, and then, and then...
Whoohoo, 2500 years of history all in one GC. I would love that, but then I'm a freak.Originally posted by BarbarossaHRE
Woops. Wait. Then of course we'd need "Cold War" 1947-1990ish. And the fun could go on with CK2 (Carolingian Kings) & DA (Dark Ages). And then something to plug that gap we thought "Legion" would fill, and then, and then, and then...
I hope it's still in... it would be great fun as long as you haven't already conquered Europe.
I'm with Trip on the already conquering Europe comment. Just how much time do you guys need to conquer the world anyway? I would think a thousand years would suffice even for newbie. I mean Genghis Khan got about a 1/4 of the way there in only 40-50 years!
And Russia has been there for about 450 years.
The usefulness of it will depend on how you play the game. From what we know, massive wars of conquest won't be as prevalent in CK as they were in EU, so that will probably benefit the transfer a bit. You just have to be thinking like a medieval monarch in what you do to make it worthwhile.
The usefulness of it will depend on how you play the game. From what we know, massive wars of conquest won't be as prevalent in CK as they were in EU, so that will probably benefit the transfer a bit. You just have to be thinking like a medieval monarch in what you do to make it worthwhile.
Originally posted by Trip
And Russia has been there for about 450 years.
The usefulness of it will depend on how you play the game. From what we know, massive wars of conquest won't be as prevalent in CK as they were in EU, so that will probably benefit the transfer a bit. You just have to be thinking like a medieval monarch in what you do to make it worthwhile.
You are correct, massive wars in Europe/Western Christianity, where very tough, never happened. But ripping some ares off Muslims and Byzantines is perfectly okay.....
Originally posted by historycaesar
You are correct, massive wars in Europe/Western Christianity, where very tough, never happened. But ripping some ares off Muslims and Byzantines is perfectly okay.....
Even there you're probably going to have to split most of your conquests into new Kingdoms, since you couldn't maintain anything more than the weakest overlordship of vassals too far away.
You could probably dump someone from your family on the throne of this new Kingdom, but in the long run that doesn't guarantee friendly relations (Indeed it could provoke rivalry, like between Bavaria and the Palatinate)
I suspect that if you get too big, you'll end up like the HRE with massive decentralisation or get repeatedly hit by "Disintegration of the Timurid Empire" type stuff. I mean only the Venetians seem to have been able to consistently hold onto an oversees Empire in the period, and they just held loads of islands and coastal fortresses.