Arilou

in general, very true. however, the far left, the extreme liberals in the democratic party, are socialist anywhere in the world. they comprise a very small sub-group of the democrats, however. unfortunately, many of their ideas creep into mainstream politics on occasion. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Like what? When have the democrats advocating nationalizing private property? I'd just like to take this moment and point out that our rightmost party in parliamnet is probably slightly to the left of the Democratic Party.

It is very different. The warfighting aspect is kind of a very, very stripped down version of HOI's (IE: division-based, though you only have infantry, irregulars, cavalry and dragoons + various brigades) Unlike HOI2 (which is all about the war) and EU2 (which is all about diplomacy/expansion) Vicky focuses on the domestic stuff: Building an industry (Revolutions brings a *huge* improvement in this: Instead of building factories manually your level of control is based on the economic policy of your ruling party: So in a laissez-faire economy your capitalists will build factories off their own accord while under a planned economy you have to pay for them yourself) and internal politics. Colonization and war is kind of secondary to this, most of your energy is simply spent trying to balance the budget and keeping your people happy... And now and then invading some poor uncivilized country or waging a Great War against a rival Great Power.... I like it a lot, as you can build all sorts of interesting socities and do all sorts of cool stuff. True. Vicky is a lot less wargamey, EU2 has more war in it, but it is rather different. (EU2 is very much a simpler game, but it is, IMHO, the most fun of them, especially in MP (Nothing feels as sweet as haviing your enemy declare war on you in 1620 and then kicking his arse with GIIA) There's still tactics, strategy and force-composition involved, but it's not as detailed as HOI2.

I like that it lets me plan for the future. It adds an extra level of strategy.

The random monarchs *groan* . I liked the historical monarchs of EU2

You active on the Paradox boards Alanschu? I'm Arilou there too.

The games are really great. They're all historical strategy games (Crusader kings is 1066-1420, Europa Universalis 2 is 1419-1820, Victoria: Revolutions 1836-1936 and Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday 1936-1954) They're really cool (all except Crusader Kings which I never liked) managing to capture the essence of each era rather well. Vicky is particularly complex as you not only have to manage the economy and fight wars but contend with an unruly electorate....

So, any fellow strategy gamer bitten by the Paradox bug? I've been playing every game they've released since EU2, and they have mostly been good. A bit worried about EU3 (some of the changes are not exactly to my liking) but will probably buy it anyway.... So, anyone play EU2, Victoria: Revolutions or Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday?

I'm deeply ambivalent. I like it in many ways and it is in almost every way a step up from NWN1.... But also it has some problems. The bad: -The Voice-acting, while still better than most of the competition, is far worse than in the BG-series, PS:T or KOTOR. Maybe it's the lack of experienced voice-actors? -Too many of the dungeons thus far feel "generic" (IE: A single cave, kill everything, reach boss, kill him, repeat) Both graphically and game-play. BG2 usually tried to vary the encounters a bit, and had puzzles and special-locations to solve (Shade Dungeon, Watcher's Keep, etc. etc.) In many ways NWN2 feels like a step back. -Only two romances. The Good: -The NPC interaction is excellent. Very well done. -The Story is actually rather engaging (Though I preferred the giths to stay around a bit more...) -The music is wonderful. (Although I could use another "tavern" song )

I'm going to have to wish for Sandman for my birthday or for christmas.... 800 SEK is just way too much for a meagre student to afford!

We've been having warm weather, it's slowly melting. So now we have two feets of slush, likely to become ice overnight *sigh*

My lady, did I tell you yet about the Hillwater Giants? My heroic feats felled them in a great orgasmic burst of admiration for my blinding righteousness. Feel free to swoon now. Nobody thought about my point about romances between party members? Not Jaheira-Khalid, but an actual romance. As the 'third man' / 'friend' the PC will be able to witness a lot of what happens and nudge them around, with scripted events working off those variables. Especially in a D&D game where you could be anything from a hunky Paladin to a chaotic halfling druid, it might work better - even if it doesn't have quite the impact of a romance with the player. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, don't get me wrong, Anomen was kind of a dork. But I think he was a pretty well-fleshed out dork. And yeah, third-party romances would be great as well. Make Love, not descents into identical caves inhabited by orcs!

Europa Universalis 3. Jade Empire for the PC. Eventually Dragon Age (if THAT ever happens )

I loved the romances in BG2, sure, they had their problems, but they added an interesting layer of "accomplishment", and especially, a reason to go back and try the game again. I'm not too fond of the "Get big bad sword and cut people to bits" reasons for going back and replaying the game, but I love trying out different role-playing strategies and getting different solutions (I love the different endings for different places you could get in Fallout, even completing the side-missions in Marvel: Ultimate Alliance gave you a neat glimpse of the future (ooops! I killed the East Coast!) I think it is somewhat sad that the BG2 romances still stand as the best example of romances in-game because well.... They had problems (the entire "wait, and wait, and wait, and wait" thing for one, and the lack of female romances except Anomen (though I didn't find him *that* bad....) Can it be done better? Almost certainly, but that won't happen unless developers *try*.

Meh, everyone knows it's Planescape>Ravenloft>Al-Qadim>FR>Dragonlance