OT: Crusader Kings

[Boron]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

they are very common so in order to repacify china you kill at least about 50-100 million of chinese most likely in the 10 years you need.

50-100 *million* people in 10 years? What the hell are you using on them, NBC weapons? Obviously this game of yours is a little warped in the realism department. These kind of numbers sound less like pacification of a revolt and more like systematic genocide on a scale that would not really fit with the timeframe you say this game is in.

---

it really fits in the timeframe .
because in real history china was never conquered by the colonial powers.
but plans to divide it between mainly russia / britain / france existed .

the main focus of the game is to industrialize your nation + reach the historic goals like unification of germany with prussia or creating the british empire .
this is already quite difficult but if you get expierienced you can set yourself the goal of WC ( = world conquest ) .
especially as russia / great britain it is very possible
but the result is that you kill about 1/3 - 1/2 of the foreign population of the whole world in that attempt because for the first 10 years they are under your reign there is something called nationality which keeps them revolting very often .

you don't know eu / eu 2 too right ?
the revolt risk ( monthly or here daily ) is a common feature of paradox games . but in eu it was only monthly and didn't kill population .

now in victoria it does and with daily revolutions it was a bit overdone ihmo. because i wanted to proofe that i gave the china example .

but expect for the too heavy revolutions it plays very realistic .

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boron:
you don't know the game do you ?
and this was only for 1 typical revolution.

Haven't played it. 5-20K people killed over one revolt is a reasonable number, though.

they are very common so in order to repacify china you kill at least about 50-100 million of chinese most likely in the 10 years you need.

50-100 *million* people in 10 years? What the hell are you using on them, NBC weapons? Obviously this game of yours is a little warped in the realism department. These kind of numbers sound less like pacification of a revolt and more like systematic genocide on a scale that would not really fit with the timeframe you say this game is in.

~300 million cause it is the china from 1830-1920 .

That's still a lot of Chinese, even if it's not modern billion-plus.

---

LOL. Typical Norfleet. Arguing about the game he have no clue about whatsoever.


EU1/2 are not perfect by any means, and I could write an article on the areas where it could use some imporvement, even after dozens of pathes and beta-pathces, although they did improve the game a lot. Nevertheless EU games are by far the best and most realisitc historical simulators made in the history of computer games, period. If you are history buff - you'll love this game. If you are not - beware, you may easely become one if you'll stick with it long enough.

And this is not a joke btw, I've read countless stories on EU Boards when I was actively participating in the gamers community there, from the people who were not particulary interested in the europwean history, but have eventually gained history as thier strong hobby, as the result of playing this game. Also general maturity level of the gamers community there was higher than in any game I have ever played in my life, inculding Dom2, and trust me - I've played a lot. Personally I attribute it to the fact that you'll not find a lot of "CoWl DuDeZ" or lame exploiters, with the active interest of XV-XIX centuries european history.

[Boron]

did you play victoria or hoi too stormbinder ?

eu2 was a long favourite of me because i like history and playing e.g. byzantine like phoenix from the ashes is very nice or making bavaria a superpower

but the problem with eu2 is that in the long run it's to simple and you have to little to do . i think that's what you mean it's not perfect

but i have never played it in mp unfortunately .

in general paradox games are nice but either they are not deep enough or one of the key systems is annoying like revolts in vicky

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Boron:
did you play victoria or hoi too stormbinder ?

eu2 was a long favourite of me because i like history and playing e.g. byzantine like phoenix from the ashes is very nice or making bavaria a superpower

but the problem with eu2 is that in the long run it's to simple and you have to little to do . i think that's what you mean it's not perfect

but i have never played it in mp unfortunately .

Nope, I haven't. I am going to give HOI a try when I have a lot of time on my hands, the reviews that I've read were mixed but sprkled my interest. From Victoria I'll probably stay away, I've heard rather negative things about it from my EU2 friends and from many reviews.

I agree, EU2 is great, especially if you have interest in the history. You can also set up a lot of different goals for yourself (other than standart ones), that would make a lot of sense historically for the nations you choose to play.

As for its problems - one of the thing that buthered me a bit is when you become a real expert with EU2 (and I have been playing to for 2 years) you reilize too well the AI's shortcoming.

I mean EU2's AI was really great relative to other strategic games, but it was far from perfect even after dozens and dozens of pathes that improved it considerably. And once you know its weaknesses (althout it could take you pretty long time to learn it, since the game is very deep and complex) you could exploit it to your advantage. At the end I could take an obscure american indian 1 province nation and lead it to world domination by 1815. That could spoil a historical feeling for me to some degree.

As for MP - it was truly fantastic. To give you some example to compare - the difference in terms of fun in SP and MP in EU2 was about 10 times larger than difference between Dom2's SP and MP. And I am not extravagating.

It would all depend on good players crowd of course, but as I said vast majority of EU2 players was very mature and intelligent, much more than in any strategic game that I've ever played. You should see some of our AARs as well as some details of european Machiavelian policy in long MP games, alliances, secret diplomatic treaties, world wars and colonial wars and religios wars between 15 nations at the same time, each struggling to archieve its own goals, etc. It was a bLast.