Thats too gamey - when would the iberians have time to colonize when theyre too busy fighting the Moors?
Seems too tacky to me...
Seems too tacky to me...
-
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.
Hi guys. Sorry I haven't done more for Interregnum lately - I have atrocious time management and never get round to doing anything.
Anyway, on the subject of making Interregnum for EU3. I don't have EU3, but I can see two general ways of making an Inter mod for it:
1. A literal port of Inter, trying to preserve as many features as possible.
This would have the advantage of bringing Inter as it is now to a new audience, and maybe allowing for some extensions that aren't possible in EU2. But it could be quite difficult to get the same overall feel as the EU2 mod. Besides, Inter is a great EU2 mod; why does it need to be transferred to EU3, when so many players are sticking with the '2?
2. A new mod, bearing considerable resemblance to Inter, but in the spirit of EU3.
In some respects, Interregnum has always been closer in spirit to EU3 than, say, AGCEEP: Inter is clearly not a historical mod, but more than that it tries to avoid historical determinism. The player is always given several valid paths rather than just 'success' or 'failure', and while we may tell particular stories, ideally no two games should end up the same. Our Reformation is much more chaotic and dependent on country actions than the simple 'this half of Europe suddenly changes colour' you got in vanilla. Players start from an ahistorical position, so that they have the freedom to write a new history by their actions without being bound by historical preconceptions.
My idea is that Inter for EU3 could be like Inter for EU2, but with a 'lighter touch' to adapt to the conventions of EU3. That means no monarch-based events, because we don't control monarchs. In general, states would acquire new cultures and cores the natural/random way, rather than by historical event (EU3 has broadly similar notions to Inter on this score anyway). No 'historical' leaders, either: instead, the names we used for leaders in Inter would go into the random name pool for leaders. Countries would have some 'historical events', but not the 100-200 per major that is the norm for well-developed countries in EU2 Inter.
At the same time, the new Inter would still have a good deal more flavour than vanilla EU3, which I've heard described as 'soulless'. But in the new freeform spirit, this would be in the form of events and effects that are more contingent on sliders, governments, advisors and National Ideas than they are on date and tag. In 1453, we'd start with a setup based on the current Interregnum storyline, with evolution broadly as described by MattyG. Each country would have a strong character, manifest in government type, DP settings, national ideas and idiosyncratic factors, and going against that character should be difficult in the short run (perhaps more so than it is in EU3 at present); but national character is still somewhat malleable, and will gradually change depending on what the country does. A Hanseatic League that adopts a fanatical strain of Anabaptism, becomes a Theocracy and conquers all the way to the Alps wouldn't just end up needing a much stronger army than usual to maintain its empire; it would progressively lose all the naval/trade advantages of the old League, because it has turned its back on that kind of thing.
Also, the new Inter would embrace the new opportunities afforded by EU3. We could have religions galore, for instance: a multitude of different heresies, cults and reformations, including many of real history's 'losers', and not just in the Christian and Muslim worlds. That doesn't mean they'll all appear in the same game, or that they'll be 'destined' to do well; they just have the potential to do so. Again, their emergence would depend on the political and social makeup of a country, not on what name it happens to have.
The Interregnum ideal to me seems to be this: anything is possible, so long as it happens in a way that is plausible. When compared to EU2, EU3 isn't so hot on plausibility at the moment, but that can be fixed. But it offers possibilities in spades.
I don't know how much of this is actually doable in EU3. But it would seem more in the spirit of things. Perhaps it should have a new name: what I'm really talking about is a new mod in the Aberration/Interregnum 'family', rather than just a new version. In the meantime, Inter could stay an EU2 mod, and continue to be developed in the spirit of the best EU2 mods: a combination of engaging storytelling and diverse gameplay.
Anyway, on the subject of making Interregnum for EU3. I don't have EU3, but I can see two general ways of making an Inter mod for it:
1. A literal port of Inter, trying to preserve as many features as possible.
This would have the advantage of bringing Inter as it is now to a new audience, and maybe allowing for some extensions that aren't possible in EU2. But it could be quite difficult to get the same overall feel as the EU2 mod. Besides, Inter is a great EU2 mod; why does it need to be transferred to EU3, when so many players are sticking with the '2?
2. A new mod, bearing considerable resemblance to Inter, but in the spirit of EU3.
In some respects, Interregnum has always been closer in spirit to EU3 than, say, AGCEEP: Inter is clearly not a historical mod, but more than that it tries to avoid historical determinism. The player is always given several valid paths rather than just 'success' or 'failure', and while we may tell particular stories, ideally no two games should end up the same. Our Reformation is much more chaotic and dependent on country actions than the simple 'this half of Europe suddenly changes colour' you got in vanilla. Players start from an ahistorical position, so that they have the freedom to write a new history by their actions without being bound by historical preconceptions.
My idea is that Inter for EU3 could be like Inter for EU2, but with a 'lighter touch' to adapt to the conventions of EU3. That means no monarch-based events, because we don't control monarchs. In general, states would acquire new cultures and cores the natural/random way, rather than by historical event (EU3 has broadly similar notions to Inter on this score anyway). No 'historical' leaders, either: instead, the names we used for leaders in Inter would go into the random name pool for leaders. Countries would have some 'historical events', but not the 100-200 per major that is the norm for well-developed countries in EU2 Inter.
At the same time, the new Inter would still have a good deal more flavour than vanilla EU3, which I've heard described as 'soulless'. But in the new freeform spirit, this would be in the form of events and effects that are more contingent on sliders, governments, advisors and National Ideas than they are on date and tag. In 1453, we'd start with a setup based on the current Interregnum storyline, with evolution broadly as described by MattyG. Each country would have a strong character, manifest in government type, DP settings, national ideas and idiosyncratic factors, and going against that character should be difficult in the short run (perhaps more so than it is in EU3 at present); but national character is still somewhat malleable, and will gradually change depending on what the country does. A Hanseatic League that adopts a fanatical strain of Anabaptism, becomes a Theocracy and conquers all the way to the Alps wouldn't just end up needing a much stronger army than usual to maintain its empire; it would progressively lose all the naval/trade advantages of the old League, because it has turned its back on that kind of thing.
Also, the new Inter would embrace the new opportunities afforded by EU3. We could have religions galore, for instance: a multitude of different heresies, cults and reformations, including many of real history's 'losers', and not just in the Christian and Muslim worlds. That doesn't mean they'll all appear in the same game, or that they'll be 'destined' to do well; they just have the potential to do so. Again, their emergence would depend on the political and social makeup of a country, not on what name it happens to have.
The Interregnum ideal to me seems to be this: anything is possible, so long as it happens in a way that is plausible. When compared to EU2, EU3 isn't so hot on plausibility at the moment, but that can be fixed. But it offers possibilities in spades.
I don't know how much of this is actually doable in EU3. But it would seem more in the spirit of things. Perhaps it should have a new name: what I'm really talking about is a new mod in the Aberration/Interregnum 'family', rather than just a new version. In the meantime, Inter could stay an EU2 mod, and continue to be developed in the spirit of the best EU2 mods: a combination of engaging storytelling and diverse gameplay.