Europa Universalis III Demo

[The.Donut]

I don't understand how a game like this would need Pixel Shader version 2.0 when other games which are far more graphically impressive don't... :crazy:

[Checkpoint]

The strangest part is that the graphics in EU3 look ugly, uglier than the 2D in EU2 as I think Llyranor pointed out. Why all this development hassle over a step backwards in terms of eye candy?

[metadigital]

I expect it is to compete in the market place with the likes of Civilization IV.

[Jorian Drake]

The strangest part is that the graphics in EU3 look ugly, uglier than the 2D in EU2 as I think Llyranor pointed out. Why all this development hassle over a step backwards in terms of eye candy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

because to attract new players....personally i also find it butt ugly <_<

 

 

 

anyway: i know how to play any nation in the demo with a small modification, if anyone is interested in that PM me.

[Tigranes]

Probably so that the publishers can be persuaded that EU3 is a good decision.

 

Yes, EU3 really is ugly. But I find that in the end it really doesn't matter for me. After all, while EU2 looked pretty good for its purposes, I never looked at any part of it and thought "wow, that's beautiful". In terms of aesthetics EU has always been poor so it wont make a difference for me.

 

What does make a difference is that I can't merge armies!! It's making me really frustrated, how do you do it?

 

Anyway, other than that, it seems very similar to EU2 with small improvements, but hard to tell yet, esp. with the AI.

[Jorian Drake]

Probably so that the publishers can be persuaded that EU3 is a good decision.

 

Yes, EU3 really is ugly. But I find that in the end it really doesn't matter for me. After all, while EU2 looked pretty good for its purposes, I never looked at any part of it and thought "wow, that's beautiful". In terms of aesthetics EU has always been poor so it wont make a difference for me.

 

What does make a difference is that I can't merge armies!! It's making me really frustrated, how do you do it?

 

Anyway, other than that, it seems very similar to EU2 with small improvements, but hard to tell yet, esp. with the AI.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

weird that i have a video card what runs a lot of games well (including NWN2) but i lag even in SP in EU3

[Lucius]

Ok this game is strange, anyway it was fun for a little while to have Sweden do as I say, but the game really lacks a lot imo.

 

Also, I might be a bit self destructive, but I was just cruisin' around in Northern Germany conquering stuff, Norway wasn't much help though, some subjects they are!

[Jorian Drake]

Ok this game is strange, anyway it was fun for a little while to have Sweden do as I say, but the game really lacks a lot imo.

 

Also, I might be a bit self destructive, but I was just cruisin' around in Northern Germany conquering stuff, Norway wasn't much help though, some subjects they are!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess I don't have to ask if you played as Denmark or not.

[Lucius]

But of course

 

However I was taking loans and buying mercs all the time, I have a feeling that just isn't the way to go in the long run. (however to be honest, mercs often made up a large part of our armies)

[Jorian Drake]

But of course

 

However I was taking loans and buying mercs all the time, I have a feeling that just isn't the way to go in the long run. (however to be honest, mercs often made up a large part of our armies)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess one-two more years and you would have gone bankrupt:

 

-you get inflation from taking loans

-you get interest rates when taking loans, a lot of of time+money to repay it all

-it requests you to pay it back, if you don't do it in 3 years you get an auto bancrupcy

-this all causes revolt risk, conquered nations/provinces can become independent real quick

-mercenaries are needing a higher payment, and they don't get fresh recruits as your own troops, and an army only half its original manpower asks for the same payment as a full one

-with wars, annexations, and other actions you get BB ('badboy', it simulates how awful you are in the eyes of the world, if you do too much at once then the world gang bangs you

-an offensive style makes other nations less agrre on diplomatic deals and trade too

 

 

One good think is in EU3 the new claim system for provinces:

 

in 25 years you lose a core (claim) what you don't have

in 50 years you gain a core (claim) what you didn't have before

 

 

Claims (cores) represent the 'main body' of your empire, what is a part of it with history, culture, and things like rights by heritage.

 

Example:

 

Ottomans lose Constantinople to crusading Knights of St. John (unlikely but possible), if they can't get it back till 25 years later they lose their core on it and they get a new permanent Capitol somewhere else. After 25 more years (25+25) Constantinople and its citizens accept and acknowledge the 'right to rule' of the 'Maltese Knights' (in this timeframe Knights of Rhodos)

 

 

Well, I dunno if its possible to move the capitol in an other way, but if not I guess the knights could get their capitol in Constantinople (instead of Rhodos) eventually by losing Rhodos to someone else.

[Tigranes]

The biggest disadvantage to using mercenaries is that you will not gain military tradition from winning battles with mercenaries. Military tradition is extremely important in getting you generals (amongst other things) - which is the key to having a great army long-term.

 

Also, of course, EU is much more punishing with war weariness ont he citizens and inflation from loans. You really have to watch yourself because even a successful war can easily bankrupt you.

 

I've tweaked things and got into the game, and I must say that it is a better game than EU2, if not significantly better. We'lls till need AGCEEP to give us a plethora of funky events, but I like especially the Holy Roman Empire. It's a pity that retreat-cycle-chase-enemies-around-for-5-years is still there, though, even if it's historical.

 

I got smashed by Savoy playing as Milan thanks to having no Generals and with some bad decision-making, will try again tonight.

[Checkpoint]

Isn't the full game out? Anyone got it? Friend of mine told me the demo sucked big time, and he's an long-time EU2 player and should know what he's talking about. He still was very excited about the full release, however, so I was wondering if anyone got their hands on it.

[Tigranes]

The full game is out (although not here). Gamersgate has it available for pay-to-download as well.

 

The demo is pretty different from the full version in a number of ways. The AI is too passive and apathetic; colonisation happens way way too fast; naval attrition is screwed; tech development is too fast; map knowledge spreads too fast. All of those things are redressed in the full game, which is now patched to v1.1.

 

It seems right now that public opinion is divided on EU3 - that is, public opinion amongst the EU2-players. EU2 pursued a very controlled history, whereby a slew of historical events happened in EVERY game and you just had to go with the flow or work against it. So if you played EU in 1907 as Muscovy (you can't) you'd always aget the "Communitst Revolution" event, and though you could choose how to react to that event, it would always happen in some form.

 

EU3 uses a new dynamic way of scripting (I cant get more technical) and pursues a slightly different philosophy to create a more 'free-form' game. The starting conditions are set as close to history as possible, and national 'personalities' and 'tendencies' are too, but then the game follows no set guidelines as EU2 does, and instead lets things happen - so you could really see Savoy take over France, Spain inherit Austria (yep, happened) or Milan become the big colonising power of the world. The premise is that, if conditions are fulfilled so X can happen, then X will happen. Why shouldn't Savoy take over France if it becoems extremely powerful and the French kingdom stagnates? Why shouldn't Spain inherit Austria when such big inheritances had happened before (i.e. Frenchman on Polish throne)? Why shouldn't Milan become the next colonising power if Spain and Portugal are wracked by civil war, or excomm'd by the Pope, and Milan comes tod ominate the western mediterrenean shipping?

 

Anyway, no matter which side one takes, everyone agrees that the full game is miles better than the demo. I'm salivating, myself.

[Pidesco]

That sounds all out awesome.

[The.Donut]

Aye, it sounds good. Just need a new graphics card now... <_<

[metadigital]

I just played the demo. First game of EU ever.

 

The balance issues I can see the developers skewing for the demo to help show players what the game is about (that's the point of a demo, after all).

 

First impressions are that it is like Civ only deveral orders of magnitude more complex and larger. (One quick fix I'd like to see modded or not is when you press "goto" in a dialog box, it should highlight the territory ... it can get really confusing with a hundred or so little provinces and I like to think I know my geography pretty well ... )

 

That's a good thing, and a bad thing. I'll probably buy the game because it will be enormous fun to play. I'll definitely lose far too much of my life playing it. That might actually count against it, as it could dissuade me from playing.

 

I had the demo on fast most of the time (pausing only briefly) and it took over six hours to play 400 years (the length of the demo).

[The.Donut]

Ohhh how is the timing compared to Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday? Does it go through each separate day? Or does it do it in weeks/months/years to account for the fact that EU spans a much larger time period?

[Rosbjerg]

Ohhh how is the timing compared to Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday? Does it go through each separate day? Or does it do it in weeks/months/years to account for the fact that EU spans a much larger time period?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

a day at a time.. but unlike HOI2 it doesn't take the hours.. depending on the time setting a day will last anything from 30 seconds to 0,5 second.. (at least that's the time setting in EU2)..

 

so imagine how long a game spanning 400 years could take if each day takes 30 seconds.. (yes I know the results, you don't need to post it)

[The.Donut]

Holy crapula.

[alanschu]

I find it much more common to have the game on ludicrous speed than the HOI2 games.

[Tigranes]

The balance issues I can see the developers skewing for the demo to help show players what the game is about (that's the point of a demo, after all).

 

You're exactly right, meta.

 

First impressions are that it is like Civ only deveral orders of magnitude more complex and larger. (One quick fix I'd like to see modded or not is when you press "goto" in a dialog box, it should highlight the territory ... it can get really confusing with a hundred or so little provinces and I like to think I know my geography pretty well ... )

 

Yes. Some of those things aren't done well at the moment (like the option to automatically pause the game when a popup appears - that's due in the next patch). Political mapmode is the easiest to get your geography right. Still, after the first 10 years or so you know your surroundings pretty well.

 

I had the demo on fast most of the time (pausing only briefly) and it took over six hours to play 400 years (the length of the demo).

 

The fastest time mode in EUIII is not as fast as that in EUII, which sucks because it really should be much faster. I tend to go down to low/mid speed in times of war and when I'm doing stuff (or just pause), and then go to full speed to pass a couple of weeks or a month.

 

It is a very long game and in my experience there are times where you dont do much for ~6 months and so have to leave the game going. The great thing is you can just alt-tab and the game would still run!

[metadigital]

The speed also drops whilst you attend to other stuff in the interface ... click on a political slider, for example, and the speed will drop a notch. And I noticed the speed was still far to slow at maximum.

[Jorian Drake]

The speed also drops whilst you attend to other stuff in the interface ... click on a political slider, for example, and the speed will drop a notch. And  I noticed the speed was still far to slow at maximum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

about the demo: it isn't 400 years, the full game is that

 

it is circa 50 years

[Tigranes]

Uh..... we know.

 

 

Getting a bit fed up with the apathetic AI in the demo that just waits for you and does nothing, so I'm having to wait for the full version. It's ridiculous how it takes ~2 months to get to New Zealand, I should just get myself a credict card and download it.

[alanschu]

I have had no bad experiences with Gamer's Gate. I have used it to buy all of my Paradox games in the past year or so. I also used it to repurchase Doomsday after I lost the CD.

Edited January 26, 2007 by alanschu