Originally posted by The Andy-Man
how about an anti-kythera divice?
Mmmm, I have no idea what you're talking about...
o-
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.
Mmmm, I have no idea what you're talking about...
o
Originally posted by Wasa
A computer..
Well, then people should be able to play it on a PS2...
European Union: Sony Ps2 is a Computer?
If that's not the case, well, some nut might sue Paradox
I'm sad that CK will be released after Vic, I think that this game will be much cooler and more historical than Victoria
Originally posted by Dzoser
I'm sad that CK will be released after Vic, I think that this game will be much cooler and more historical than Victoria
Actually, I'd say Victoria would have better chance of playing out historically than CK - Victoria has historical rulers and events throughout the entire game, while in CK you won't even have the same king as in real life ruling each nation after the original historical one dies.
Definitely. Victoria will follow history in the same way that EU2 follows hostory. CK might just have more of an historic feel - certainly the people of history won't be in CK once the staring folks have died out.
Originally posted by Sonny
Definitely. Victoria will follow history in the same way that EU2 follows hostory. CK might just have more of an historic feel - certainly the people of history won't be in CK once the staring folks have died out.
Not only that, but with different historical characters in CK, there will be different marriages, leading to different royal claims and different kingdoms, alliances, and wars than occured historically.
Originally posted by Sonny
Definitely. Victoria will follow history in the same way that EU2 follows hostory. CK might just have more of an historic feel - certainly the people of history won't be in CK once the staring folks have died out.
But does EU 'follow' history. Has anyone had EU play out to the end in a historically plausible way? I'd hav ethought we've had enough monkeys typing to get a Shakespeare by now.
But with EU, given the rulers of your kingdom, and the historical events, it is at least possible to play your nation nearly historically - even if it doesn't always end up that way. In CK, once the initial generation dies off, even the historical characters won't be the same as in real life. Since the entire game is based on these characters, I see little possibility of playing a game historically, even if you desire to do so.
I basically agree with you but my monkeys reference was that as Events in EU become less logical as time goes on it may be historical to have events related to situations rather than timelines.
True, but that just means that the events should have better triggers, so that they only fire if they "make sense".
re Marcus Valerius
Historical rulers and events for me are much less important than structure of state and diplomatic relations between states. As for me solutions in Vic are much less historical than these in CK. As for me doesn't mean as for you
By the way system of events maybe relates to history but not to this what happens in game. When I was playing as Austria and had very good relations with Poland + aliance for 200 years it wasn't important for system of events involved in game and I get casus belli on Poland and even more stupid hereditary provinces in Poland - The Division of Poland 1772 (Cracow even wasn't claimed by Austria in XIX centuary as historically part of Habsburgs empire). For me it is stupidity.
Historical rulers and events for me are much less important than structure of state and diplomatic relations between states. As for me solutions in Vic are much less historical than these in CK. As for me doesn't mean as for you
By the way system of events maybe relates to history but not to this what happens in game. When I was playing as Austria and had very good relations with Poland + aliance for 200 years it wasn't important for system of events involved in game and I get casus belli on Poland and even more stupid hereditary provinces in Poland - The Division of Poland 1772 (Cracow even wasn't claimed by Austria in XIX centuary as historically part of Habsburgs empire). For me it is stupidity.
Last edited:
Originally posted by Dzoser
re Marcus Valerius
Historical rulers and events for me are much less important than structure of state and diplomatic relations between states. As for me solutions in Vic are much less historical than these in CK. As for me doesn't mean as for you
What makes you think Victoria does not have historical structure of state and diplomatic relations between states?
re Sonny
I haven't written this! I only think that CK will be MORE historical than Vic, nothing more, nothing less
I haven't written this! I only think that CK will be MORE historical than Vic, nothing more, nothing less
Yes but then again the historical match in EU2 can be kinda weird... I played as Denmark and had diplo-annexed Sweden... and then suddenly an avent where Gustav Wasa aids a coup aginst the danish king to get Frederik II to the throne instead appears. BUT but but theres no Sweden, so what the hell are Gustav Wasa's role in the conflict, he should't even be there???
History just shot itself in its foot...
And the reason why CK is under development for so long, is propably because its gonna be so damn GREAT!!!
BUT but but theres no Sweden, so what the hell are Gustav Wasa's role in the conflict, he should't even be there??? History just shot itself in its foot...
And the reason why CK is under development for so long, is propably because its gonna be so damn GREAT!!!