This was a good EUIII player

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
654px-Second_world_war_europe_1941-1942_map_en.png
 
I would try to avoid attacking that country to the East until your infamy gets lower, you've lost some war exhaustion, and you've cored some of those provinces, though.
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
I would try to avoid attacking that country to the East until your infamy gets lower, you've lost some war exhaustion, and you've cored some of those provinces, though.
Click to expand...

They have a huge land force limit and attrition modifiers dude. He should have formed the HRE and went for iberia and anatolia. The Siberian provinces are pretty worthless.
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
BTW, Billy, Hearts of Iron III (basically EUIII in the WWII era) is available for 2.50 on Steam right now, and you can get the collection with all of the DLC's and expansion packs as well for $7. Sales ends in like 45 minutes.
Click to expand...

FUCK! WHY DOES MY COMPUTER HAVE TO BE DOWN?!?
 
Kel Tec RFB said:
Bought it, but was tempted to get the Paradox complete series.
Click to expand...

Me too. Unfortunately, I have most of the games I'd want from it already. Mount and Blade, HoI, EUII, Magicka. The only one I really need is Victoria and Magna Mundi when it comes out. By getting the complete pack, I could get a lot of the earlier versions of those games, like EUII. But I'm not sure if it'd be worth it.
 
I actually started playing on EUII because EUIII wouldn't run on my old computer. It had a few differences - for instance, each nation had a few scripted events which helped constrain them more to their proper historical role. So, Spain got conquistadors very early through an event, and they were the only ones who could conquer the Americas for a long time. EUIII, in contrast, had a more "choose your own destiny" style of play. So you get completely and totally crazy looking maps with Sweden owning half of Portugal and such, and Austria colonizes America from the get go. Magna Mundi, the add on that I loved so much, took a moderate route between these two. It closely modelled the historical conditions of the regions so that it was more difficult to break out of your historical role, but it didn't hard script you into a role like EUII. You could do anything you wanted provided you were good enough, but, should you choose to conquer half of Portugal as Sweden, you'd find that there were very good reasons Sweden never chose to do anything like that.
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
I actually started playing on EUII because EUIII wouldn't run on my old computer. It had a few differences - for instance, each nation had a few scripted events which helped constrain them more to their proper historical role. So, Spain got conquistadors very early through an event, and they were the only ones who could conquer the Americas for a long time. EUIII, in contrast, had a more "choose your own destiny" style of play. So you get completely and totally crazy looking maps with Sweden owning half of Portugal and such, and Austria colonizes America from the get go. Magna Mundi, the add on that I loved so much, took a moderate route between these two. It closely modelled the historical conditions of the regions so that it was more difficult to break out of your historical role, but it didn't hard script you into a role like EUII. You could do anything you wanted provided you were good enough, but, should you choose to conquer half of Portugal as Sweden, you'd find that there were very good reasons Sweden never chose to do anything like that.
Click to expand...
I like the lack of restrictions that EUIII gives. I reformed the roman empire as byzantium, and my Timurid game is going fucking awesome.
 
Kel Tec RFB said:
I like the lack of restrictions that EUIII gives. I reformed the roman empire as byzantium, and my Timurid game is going fucking awesome.
Click to expand...

Well, Magna Mundi doesn't have hard restrictions. I think it is simply a more accurate model that better models the way countries developed. It also leads to less fucking crazy maps. I seriously often look at the maps during the middle of EUIII play and laugh at how ridiculous and unrealistic they are. It's also too easy.

Well, actually, now that I think about it, it does have that some hard restriction on conquistadors. There are several special national ideas which require you to get 4 or so national ideas in their respective area before they're unlocked, so you'd have to get 4 exploration ideas to get Quest for the New World, which requires hundreds of years of research in government, and there's no way to recruit explorers or conquistadors otherwise. in the standard game, you can grab Quest for the New World as your first idea. If you are a historical colonizer, on the other hand, you'll get special historical conquistadors and explorers at appropriate times, such as Christopher Columbus if you're Spain.

Things are slightly different, though - for instance, there's a chance that Colombus will appear to you in his home country of Genoa rather than Spain. This is actually historically accurate - Colombus did appeal to Genoa for funding for an expedition and was rejected, after which he went to Spain. This is one of the more controversial aspects of the model, as it does break from their hands off policy of simply doing more accurate modelling of historical conditions and grants favoritism to some nations. To be fair to them, there's really not an easy way to accurately model this in gameplay - if you give everyone the an equal ability to get such a perk, everyone is going to be colonizing the new world at the same time, which isn't historically accurate.
 
Kel Tec RFB said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Complicated research trees, diplomatic system, political system, production system. All stuff that was pretty much handled automatically in HoI III. Seems like too much to handle on your own. You can set the AI to handle it for you, but that's no fun.

I never thought I'd see a game that made EUIII look simple. I suppose that they have to do it, with HoI only having like 10 years of campaign time vs. EUIII's 400.
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
Complicated research trees, diplomatic system, political system, production system. All stuff that was pretty much handled automatically in HoI III. Seems like too much to handle on your own. You can set the AI to handle it for you, but that's no fun.

I never thought I'd see a game that made EUIII look simple. I suppose that they have to do it, with HoI only having like 10 years of campaign time vs. EUIII's 400.
Click to expand...

Isn't it divided into hours instead of days though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top