Unexpected news: HoI3 Expansion announced

[Razgovory]

I actually liked EU3 better then EU2 because of the lack of historical straight jackets.

[Valmy]

I actually liked EU3 better then EU2 because of the lack of historical straight jackets.

EU3 played way too slowly for me.  It was just no fun.  I could see it was at least a decent design though.

Also I liked the Historical straightjackets.  I could learn some history of the country while I played.  And yes I could read a history book but the amount of history books on Rajputs are lacking at my local B&N.

[Tamas]

and slapped history in the face repeatedly

So?

that's the exact same reason why we tear the recent Paradox games apart. And that's the only feature they share with EU2, they are superior in every other respect. They are even more historical than EU2

I can't really agree with this, at least not with regards to EUIII.  EU2 had a bunch of historical straightjackets.  Play Vijanayager (sp) in EU2, and on a certain date, you either have to give the Moguls most of your provinces, or suffer major penalties, no matter how well you were doing up to that point.  Or play Castille, and as long as you keep good relations with Aragon, you're going to inherit them on a set date.  Or, God forbid, play the Ming and play half the game with revolt risks of +15 or worse in all your provinces, with nothing you can do about it.

EUIII has a lot of improvements:  it's more stable, the system of recruitment by regiments is an improvement IMO, etc., but it's also inferior in some ways.  And in no way is it more historical, because it was designed to NOT have the historical straightjackets that EU2 had.

yes, EU3 is the exception, but it's not getting that much flak here, at all.

[Norgy]

I gave the US a quick run. There are some new features that look nice. I have up in November 1936 when the election gave a Republican victory, yet Robert Wagner, of the well-known "no_minister_type" and Democratic party affiliation (according to HoI3) became head of state.
Time to demand patches and that heads will role and see temp bans fly.

[Neil]

There is another way that EU2 was superior to EU3:  Map aesthetics.

[Razgovory]

I gave the US a quick run. There are some new features that look nice. I have up in November 1936 when the election gave a Republican victory, yet Robert Wagner, of the well-known "no_minister_type" and Democratic party affiliation (according to HoI3) became head of state.
Time to demand patches and that heads will role and see temp bans fly.

Robert Wagner?  He was like six at the time.

[Valmy]

There is another way that EU2 was superior to EU3:  Map aesthetics.

And music.

[dps]

I actually liked EU3 better then EU2 because of the lack of historical straight jackets.

I don't disagree, but you can't really plausibly claim that it makes EUIII more historical.

[Norgy]

There is another way that EU2 was superior to EU3:  Map aesthetics.

Very much so. The aesthetics, even with map mods, just aren't the same. EU2 was like playing on an old, precious map.

I am not denying that EU3 is a better game overall. There are, however, "improvements" that weren't necessary.

[dps]

There is another way that EU2 was superior to EU3:  Map aesthetics.

Very much so. The aesthetics, even with map mods, just aren't the same. EU2 was like playing on an old, precious map.

I am not denying that EU3 is a better game overall. There are, however, "improvements" that weren't necessary.

I think that the worst thing is, the way they have been since EUIII came out, or actually a bit before that, I don't trust what they say anymore.

For example, the whole move to 3D thing.  The move was justified by saying that there were 2 main benefits.  One was that some of the processing load could be shifted from the CPU to the video card, and the other was that it would make things easier for modders.  OK, I'm not a computer expert, and even a lot of my general or theoretical computer knowledge is a quarter century or more out-of-date, but while the first reason, on the face of it, seems completely logical (though I don't actually know it to be true), I have no idea why the second reason would possibly be true.  (Note that I'm not saying it isn't true, just that, given my limited knowledge of computers, I see no reason why it would be true.)  Now, if Paradox operated largely like they did back when EU I got 10 official patches, I'd trust that it was true, even though I don't understand it.  But at this point, I trust them so little that if they say 2 + 3 = 5, I don't trust it until I verify the math.  And ultimately, I don't want to spend my money with people I trust so little.

[Razgovory]

There is another way that EU2 was superior to EU3:  Map aesthetics.

And music.

Yes, I miss that horrible shrieking song.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwdnNyySDLI

[Josephus]

There is another way that EU2 was superior to EU3:  Map aesthetics.

Very much so. The aesthetics, even with map mods, just aren't the same. EU2 was like playing on an old, precious map.

I am not denying that EU3 is a better game overall. There are, however, "improvements" that weren't necessary.

Agreed. Actually one of the things that bothers me about recent P'dox games is their failed attempt to appeal to aesthetics. Their games looked fine in 2-D. When they started aiming for these 3D graphics is when their look went down hill.

[Norgy]

Patch out. And I am sure it fixes something. But mostly it seems to have added new bugs. The US starts out with three-year draft and war economy in 1936.

[Ideologue]

Patch out. And I am sure it fixes something. But mostly it seems to have added new bugs. The US starts out with three-year draft and war economy in 1936.

Christ.

Anyway, EU2 was a far more fun game.  It was simpler, but that does not mean worse.

EU3 is sitting staring at a fucking screen, making money hand over fist, and not being able to use it to do anything remotely interesting, and the lack of straitjacketing means even dumber shit than could happen in EU2 is standard, like the animist England I posted once.

[Norgy]

It's the Byzanteens and Incan Crunchies' fault.

"But, but, Byzantium could've survived. Oh, and the Incas would've landed on the moon in 1802!"