If you think Civ3 is rushed, try EU2

[Monoriu]

Just bought EU 2, or Europa Universalis 2.

Installed it, then immediately played Portugal. Saved game on day 1, then decided to take a look at the new African nations by re-starting the game and playing Benin.

Then I re-loaded the Portugal game. Hmm strange, still showing the Benin map and Portugal was no where to be found. Tried again, same thing. Not a good sign. Quit game, re-started, loaded Portugal game, there it was. Whew.

Ok. Found myself already at war with Fez. New nation, cool. But somehow my 20,000 army was sitting at Tangiers, a Fez province, and not besieging it? In EU 1 any army strong enough would automatically besiege the province if no enemy troops was present.....hmmm must be a new feature. Decided to move army to Fez capital, then changed my mind to move the army back to Tangiers. Hmmm wait a minute its now besieing the province.....same army. Maybe the game couldn't start with an army besigeing a province?

Then I fought a couple of battles with Fez. Finally occupied the entire nation and signed a peace treaty. There was a new feature to force vassalization with peace, great! I took Tangiers and left their capital, I couldn't annex it because of new "only annex capital if only province left rule". Fine no problem I would took it 5 years later when the treaty expired.

5 years later......clicked on diplomacy, tried "cancel vassalization" so that I could start war with Fez again..... clicked the button, nothing happened. Tried once again, nothing. Once more! Nothing. Visited EU 2 official forum. One of those known bugs. Tough luck. Couldn't cancel Fez vassalization meant I could never attack it. Unacceptable.

Re-started game as Portugal and reminded myself to not use the force vasselization feature this time. Everything same as last game, took first province Tangiers and started to besiege Fez capital. This time Fez was also at war with Morroco, another nation. Morroco also sent troops to besiege the Fez capital, side-by-side with my forces. No problem, I thought, I had the larger army and I had a general (in EU 1 whoever had the most senior officer in the besieging army would receive the province if it was taken). Took Fez capital......BUT WAIT A MINUTE, *I* took Tangiers province alone but now it reverted to Morroco??!?!?!?! The Morrocans never set a foot on Tangiers! Checked official forum.....another known bug......DUH.

Hmm. Another new feature was domestic policies. 8 sliders, great. Clicked on each one of them to see what they did. Clicked on "navy", said it land troops morale would do down if I moved toward "navy" and naval troops morale would go up. Made sense. Clicked on "land", said naval troops morale would go down if I chose this option, but land troops morale would also go down?!?!?! Textual error most probably.....

ok. calm down. Figured I would play with exploration a bit. Just got 1st explorer.....sent him toward South America. I clicked on him while he was on his way to check attrition, then first thing I noticed was my hard-drive making some funny noises.....then the cursor switched back into the Windows default white arrow....then I was back to Windows desktop.

The above was the summary of my experience with EU 2 in the first 3 hours of the game.

Civ 3 has bugs when it was first released. It still has some after the first patch. But the civ 3 "rush factor" is pretty low when compared with other games. Not saying it can't do better, but it really isn't that bad.

[yin26]

First, sorry to hear about those EU2 probs. Any chance you had some kind of strange install problems? Sounds like there is a problem with the save location. Anyway ...

The big difference, of course, is that when EU2 is 'finished' and when Civ3 is 'finished,' EU2 will still be the far deeper game made by a group of guys with far more interest in making its fans happy.

So if you had to stick it out with only one of those games, EU2 is by far the better bet. Of course, you can stick it out with both games. Why not? Then again, my version of 'stick it out' means returning or not buying the games until they are finished to begin with...

[BigNick]

Originally posted by Monoriu

If you think Civ3 is rushed, try EU2

Ah, crap. That's another one I was looking forward to. You know who I blame this on? People. Gods, I'm starting to hate people.

Civ 3 has bugs when it was first released. It still has some after the first patch. But the civ 3 "rush factor" is pretty low when compared with other games.

Yeah, that's true, but it's still far too high compared to some of the other things I could buy with my $110 (or, at last view, $70). CDs. DVDs. A month's Foxtel. A new pair of batting gloves. Part of a new fridge. That sort of thing.

Sure, there have been some highly-publicised (and highly-rated) crap that's come out over the last few months. Black & White. Pool of Radiance II. Any Everquest release you care to name. Unfortunately, they were just too buggy for release.

So what does this mean? Not a lot. It means that developers and publishers will keep pushing buttons regarding buggy software and patches until people stop buying their games. I'm at that stage. I didn't buy POR II at its release because of the bugs, and now that it's calmed down a bit I don't feel an overwhelming urge to buy it at all. One sale lost. Just one, but how many times did they lose a single sale because of the bugs?

I'm not going to buy MoO3 because I'm still annoyed at Infogrames. I was going to grab EU2 at release, but now I won't - I'll wait to see if it's patched, how good the patch is and whether it's worth getting at the end of it. Civ3 may be the last game I buy without waiting. Hell, I'm 26 - I'm old enough to be allowed to be crotchetty.

Patches are a fact of life, but they're one I try to do without. I don't see them as a valid alternative to releasing a working game. If a game is too buggy, then as far as I'm concerned it's in the same category as a scratched CD or a lemon car. Sure, I can get a fix, but that should be priced in and to pick something up before then is just allowing yourself to be played for a sucker.

EDIT: Yes, OK - it's hard to find a new fridge with fewer defects than Civ3 for $70. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by yin26
First, sorry to hear about those EU2 probs. Any chance you had some kind of strange install problems? Sounds like there is a problem with the save location. Anyway ...

The big difference, of course, is that when EU2 is 'finished' and when Civ3 is 'finished,' EU2 will still be the far deeper game made by a group of guys with far more interest in making its fans happy.

So if you had to stick it out with only one of those games, EU2 is by far the better bet. Of course, you can stick it out with both games. Why not? Then again, my version of 'stick it out' means returning or not buying the games until they are finished to begin with...

Nope, no installation problems. The "load game bug" I mentioned is another known bug experienced by all.

I have great confidence that both games will occupy my most favourite game #1 and #2 spots for a long time after being patched. But what I have to say is....when I compare my first 3 hours playing civ 3 (no serious bugs) and my first 3 hours playing EU 2 (see above), I have to say civ 3 does a much better job when it comes to killing bugs before release.

[yin26]

You mean, of course, as long as you don't play on an XP machine or with certain video cards? Anyway, this is why my 'Games purchased as soon as they are released' number has dropped to zero. In the case of Civ3, I was able to try it out before buying it ... and even the free test made me feel cheated! (<--joke, since some many people here are joke-impaired)

[korn469]

i hadn't ever played EU before but i opened EU2 last week and played it twice (about 10 hours of study time lost) resumed a save game with no apparent problems i haven't played it enough to give a real comparison to civ3 yet, but civ3 and EU are both free of HUGE bugs, both are fun, EU2 seems less tedious (the hours disappeared without me noticing at all) civ3 seems to have a couple over on EU2, but EU2 is quite addictive so far more addictive than Civ3 was for me

[kimmygibler]

Here is my theory: Anyone can download any game they want for free, and game companies can't really stop it. So what they do is make the initial release very bad, then when the patch comes out with its copy protections all the game thiefs are screwed.

Is this true? Have heard that many games/cracks will not work if you install the patch. Or at least you must redownload the game or something. Mabye this is to discourage thieves since it would take a long time to download one of these new realease games.

[yin26]

Well, the new cracks come out within days of a patch, so that's not an effective route to take.

[ravagon]

1.02 for EU2 is supposedly due out soon. - Should fix many of the glitches.
Judging from the level of acceptance from the regulars on Paradox' forum EU2 should be much more usable than civ3, and much sooner.

[BigNick]

Originally posted by ravagon
Judging from the level of acceptance from the regulars on Paradox' forum EU2 should be much more usable than civ3, and much sooner.

Quick question - I'm not sufficiently fascinated to check Paradox' fora myself.

How much of that acceptance is due to lower expectations - players who weren't expecting something to be the be-all and end-all of TBS, and aren't disappointed by not being able to play the game the same way they had previously?

[yin26]

The EU folks are some of the most hardcore strategy types you are likely to find. And, in fact, a number of them are rather upset that EU2 is 'just EU with a few new features.' They also typically make the comment that the AI took one step forward and two steps back in EU2, though this is being addressed.

So, same problems but one big difference: The developer actually works alongside the fans in an open and public way to address issues of concern. And information is kept up-to-date and clear on the official site. Thus, even if you ultimately don't like EU2, you'll know that it's not because various issues are being ignored.

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by BigNick


Quick question - I'm not sufficiently fascinated to check Paradox' fora myself.

How much of that acceptance is due to lower expectations - players who weren't expecting something to be the be-all and end-all of TBS, and aren't disappointed by not being able to play the game the same way they had previously?

EU 2 was released about a year after the release of EU 1.

The two games are VERY similar. So similar, that some people actually call it a patch. That is too much, an add-on would be closer to reality. It looks the same, not similar, but SAME graphics. Basic game mechanism and interface are the same. The only new stuff are new nations, 100 more years of play, more provinces, some new options and features here and there, and a supposedly better AI.

Suffice to say, if you love EU1, you'll love EU2, because its really an improvement on the same thing. They didn't make ANY significant changes at all.

In civ terms, that will be like releaseing civ 3 a year after civ 2, with the same engine and graphics, but with more city imporvements, more techs, more units, a new age into the future, more diplomatic options, better AI, etc.

That's why I like civ 3 more than EU 2.

[horgel]

They didn't make ANY significant changes at all.

(Sounds like you have just take at look at game, rather than playing it...)

At first i must admit that i love EU (and also love the civ series), so i don't want to bore you with praises about how good EU is. But some things should be taken into context here:

Yes, EU2 is less than a complete new game but it is significantly more than an Add-on, as it provides it's player with new gaming experiences.

Looking at the new features from Civ3 to Civ2 and EU1 to EU2 one must admit that EU2 is at least as inventive as Civ3 compared to their precedessors.
But in one case there has one year passed and in the second one there have been SEVEN years gone by. Seven years of new develpoments in gaming. While there is no comaprable game to EU, Firaxis could have taken a look at some other similiar product like their AC or Activisions CTP to get some more ideas.
Therfore, even so i think that Civ3 is actual the best Civ game, i've grown really disapointed about it after just one week playing, put it on the shelf, bought EU2 and played till now with great enjoyment.

EU is NOT a civ game, it's historical simulation, which gives it's players full freedom of decision ingrained in the worlds history form 1419 to 1819. Therfore it simulates 180(!) countries, all with their own historical profile, leaders, events, borders, policy. Most of them are playable by human players, who are free to give the history another direction...

So EU is a good alternative for Civ players like me, who are disapointed by the missing historical aspects of Civ3.

Eu isn't rushed, all promised features are available.
It has gone through a big public beta test, and the developers realized many proposals of the very active EU-Community
Although playing EU2 is big fun by now it still needs (and will get) some tweaks.
Regarding the goal of a realistic simulation of 180 countries over a period of 400 years, this fact is acceptable, I think.
Why are the germans called the germans in civ3? Hey, they can build a tank! Wow, that's really characteristic for a whole history of a nation.
A nation played by the computer in Civ3 will never act or develope similar to it's spit image in the reality.
EU2 tries this, and while it's not perfect, it certainly does a good job. In CIV3 a nation is not much more than a just a name.

All people who complain about starting positions and all people who want to play a game more tied to the historical context should take more than one look at EU2.

Otherwise play CIV3, (sadly (somewhat)) it is the best CIV-game we can buy at the moment.

[Grumbold]

EU2 seems to have enough defenders, so I won't echo. The critical difference IMO is that the Paradox staff are willing to spend hours on the website discussing the game with the fans and releasing frequent patches to fix perceived problems. With the historically minded pedants enthralled by the game this even includes the names of certain minor-nation provinces, leaders, capitals etc. The sort of fluff that most would hardly notice. Firaxis on the other hand seem to have signed a 'wont bark unless you say we can' deal with Infogrames so we exist in a knowledge vacuum when it comes to potential future improvements, even such important ones as multiplayer. Additionally, the Paradox files -even saves- are deliberately readable ascii text to encourage modification.

[St Leo]

Suffice to say, if you love EU1, you'll love EU2, because its really an improvement on the same thing. They didn't make ANY significant changes at all.

Could you please define significant? I find that social engineering, trade agreements, and lots of other little things make for a much more fun game.

[ravagon]

From the impression I've gotten, although I've only been aware of EU for a little over a year now, it seems to be a question of ego or something akin to it.
Paradox AFAIK came out of pretty much nowhere and built something with much assistance from and interaction with, their fan base which they seem to duly credit.
Civ3, although ostensibly taking ideas from the "List of civ3 ideas for developers" on apolyton, was much more closed about the actual development process, and, although they can take more credit for its successes, they also have to take more of the blame for its failures.
Both seem to have been rushed out the door by their publishers/distributors/financiers but it seems that even though Civ3 was a little more finished at the time (although missing scenarios/tools :doitnow: ), Paradox has since been far more responsive and effective at fixing any shortcomings.
This is all IMO of course which could be completely and totally wrong (Not like thats happened before ).

[Chronus]

I find this whole EU (EU2) vs Civ 3 thing rather interesting.

I have EU and have played 10 games now. The bugs I've experienced in EU are SERIOUS compared to Civ 3. Three of the scenarios will not save after a certain year is reached. I cannot right click the nation I want to talk to in that diplomacy list so I have to HUNT ALL OVER THE MAP and then click the nation I want to talk to it (even though the help tip on the screen says I can right click on the list). In order to speed up the game, I can't simply use the hotkeys ... they don't work. Consequently, I have to go to the options menu, via F10, and speed up/slow down the game that way. It's been awhile since I've played the game but those are off the top of my head. Furthermore, this is AFTER loading patch 1.10. I don't know what later patches are like. Finally, take a look at the ReadMe.txt file and read the bugs. Take note how many CRASHES that had to be fixed.

I derive two points from this debacle:

1) A type of double standard exists in these forums. Firaxis is cursed for not testing its product and releasing such "shoddy work". Paradox, on the other hand, is not only forgiven for their buggy initial release, but PRAISED for all the patches that had to be done (and still don't work, IMOHO). If Firaxis were to make Civ 3 100% perfect with patches, will they get the same response from the consumers?

2) NEVER underestimate the power of good PR. I haven't seen this first hand from Paradox but from what I read, it sounds like they really got this act together. I was so inspired by what others have said that I was actually considering giving EU2 a chance! Unfortunately, I found EU rather substandard and the comments above about EU2 have frightened me off. Still, I'll keep my eyes open for future developments.

I suppose a third point/conclusion may be observed: Civ 3 has its history playing against itself. Many old time players want that first time addictive feeling back and are angry that they can't have it anymore. EU happened to come along and be that perfect alternative to vent out their frustrations.

Well, whatever camp you're in . . . count your blessings and enjoy your favorite game.

[Kyle]

Three of the scenarios will not save after a certain year is reached. I cannot right click the nation I want to talk to in that diplomacy list so I have to HUNT ALL OVER THE MAP and then click the nation I want to talk to it (even though the help tip on the screen says I can right click on the list).

That feature never worked and was removed early on. In EU 1, that's hardly a hassle as there aren't that many nations. Besides, it helps you get to know the game board.

In order to speed up the game, I can't simply use the hotkeys ... they don't work. Consequently, I have to go to the options menu, via F10, and speed up/slow down the game that way.

Erm, press CTRL - or CTRL + (using the - and + from the num pad) will decrease and increase speed. Otherwise, you'de have to hit CTRL SHIFT then the - or + on the standard keys.

[Chronus]

Hi Kyle,

Thanks for replying . . .

In EU 1, that's hardly a hassle as there aren't that many nations.

There isn't??? You are including the small nations, aren't you? Are we playing the same map?

The hardest part is finding those single province countries. And when they contact me, I have to frantically search where they are before their little message box tag dissapears. I know I can simply click the tag but I want to know where they are at for strategic purposes BEFORE I commit myself to some alliance. I just find the whole thing very unuser-friendly. You did bring up a good point though: it's good for learning the map!

Erm, press CTRL - or CTRL + (using the - and + from the num pad) will decrease and increase speed.

I've tried all sorts of combinations with the keys: Alt, Ctrl, Shift but they just don't seem to work. However, I may not have used the "+" and "-" keys on the NUMPAD though I'm pretty sure I did (I definately used the other ones on the top row).

Thanks for the tips!

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Chronus
Hi Kyle,

Thanks for replying . . .



There isn't??? You are including the small nations, aren't you? Are we playing the same map?

The hardest part is finding those single province countries. And when they contact me, I have to frantically search where they are before their little message box tag dissapears. I know I can simply click the tag but I want to know where they are at for strategic purposes BEFORE I commit myself to some alliance. I just find the whole thing very unuser-friendly. You did bring up a good point though: it's good for learning the map!

Heh, wait 'till you see the starting map for EU2.

When something pops up, just hit the Pause key.

I've tried all sorts of combinations with the keys: Alt, Ctrl, Shift but they just don't seem to work. However, I may not have used the "+" and "-" keys on the NUMPAD though I'm pretty sure I did (I definately used the other ones on the top row).

Thanks for the tips!

Welcome...and making sure the Numlock is on, Ctrl + and - should work.

[yin26]

Patch 1.02 is out.

******************
* Gameplay tweaks
******************
- Hordes of diplomatic annexations should now be much less likely.
- Enter is no longer usable as keyboard shortcut for accepting peace offer.
- You can no longer ask for military access from countries you are at war with.
- There is now a connection between Smyrna and Ionia, so that armies can move between it.
- Religion is more likely to revert to the religion of the capital when goverment is broken.
- Pagan countries no longer get religion penalties when declaring war on other pagan countries.
- Morale modifier from offensive/defensive domestic policies tweaked.
- Morale modifier from land/naval domestic policies are now only beneficiary, no penalties.
- Offering a loan now costs 1 diplomat.
- New default message settings which should be much more newbie friendly has been implemented.
- Fine Arts manufacturies now give 5$ to stability monthly.
- American nations can not build fleets until they have had enough contact with europeans.
- You will now discover the seazone outside your port if you start building a fleet.
- The probability of losing a manufactory from losing control of a city has been reduced from 10% to 2%.
- Looting your own provinces will no longer destroy manufacturies.
- Provinces controlled by rebels for a long time may now defect to already existing countries.
- Missionaries will now also change culture of Pagan provinces.
- COT province assignment is now calculated each time a new cot arrives, even if its during the year.
- Rollover texts for several diplomatic actions have been extended.
- Some technology rollover text inconsistencies were changed.
- Events happening to your own country are now shown in the history log.
- Chinese techgroup speed lowered to be slower than moslem techgroup speed.
- Revoltrisk from religious tolerance is now based on the tolerance of the controller.
- You should now be able to be in supply while in vassals at peacetime too.
- Revolting countries will now have logical culture and religion when created.
- Tech costs has been increased by a total of about about 20%, so that maxing out technologies should happen close to 1820 than 1750.
- The effects of some religions have been slightly tweaked.


***********
* AI Fixes
***********

- AI bonuses are now only adapted at the highest difficulty levels, and is now granted to all ai nations.
- Spanish, Dutch and French ai file tweaks.
- There are now two more variables exported to ai-files.
- Default AI slightly less aggressive.
- French AI now hates England more.
- The AI for determening which religion to switch to has been improved.
- AI is now more likely to colonise provinces closer to home.
- Some AI nations will now send missionaries.
- AI is less likely to repeatedly ask for military access and guaranteeing the same country within a few years.
- The Peace negotiation AI will no longer completely disregard demands until he is destroyed.
- The amount of longdistance declaration of wars from the AI should be reduced further now.
- The AI will no longer lockup in a hundred year war just because they don't like any provinces in a peaceoffer.
- There should be slightly more wars started by the AI in the later parts of the game now.
- Diplomatic annexations probabilities have been tweaked up a bit.
- AI should now be much more likely to go on badboy wars.
- AI Vassals will now go to war and not remain passive all the time.
- The AI is now more likely to defends its vassals when they are attacked.
- The AI may now accept alliance offers even if you are not neighbours.
- The AI is now even smarter when adapting its army size.
- The AI now looks at its troops morale before the final charge much more.
- The Turkish AI will now be much more inclined to blitzing with his armies.
- The AI is now a bit smarter when it comes to using cavalry instead of infantry.
- The AI for gathering of troops should now be smarter on where to gather his armies.
- The Military AI will be a bit faster to react now.
- The AI should be less passive with its troops now.
- The AI is now a little bit smarter in not always pouring in huge amounts of troops in all places.
- The AI should now be more likely to keep some reserves around.
- The AI is a lot smarter about determening which unit should be assigned to which plan now.
- AI is now more likely to garrison locations with high revolt risk.
- The AI now keeps around a large enough force to siege properly.


*****************
* Scenario Setup
*****************

- All present countries should now be selectable in all of the scenarios.
- Norway is now playable in 1419. Denmark strengthened to compensate.
- "Indian" culture split into five new culture groups.
- A large amount of new names for randomleaders were added.
- DP settings tweaked for France and the Russian principalities.
- DP settings adjusted for the Indonesian nations and Malacca.
- Provinces around the Great Lakes can no longer have ports.
- A problem with the Hanover kings not appearing for England in later scenarios fixed.
- Population in Dauphine increased in most scenarios.
- Core provinces for Brittany, France and the french minors have been tweaked.
- Bohemia and Granada adjusted as revolters.
- Punjab/Sikh nation added as a revolter.
- Sir Francis Drake added as an explorer (could also be an admiral).
- Leaders and monarchs for Zulu, Norway and Dahomey added.
- Danish leader file greatly expanded.
- The Algerian admiral Barbarossa added.
- Ayutthayan monarch skills adjusted.
- Country Culture in the scenarios and events corrected for the Knights of St John.
- Known provinces corrected for a large amount of asian nations.
- Known provinces corrected for Ethiopia and Oman.
- 1419 Turkish capital moved to Bursa for play balance reasons.
- Ottomans now have better quality troops in 1419.
- Ottoman Empire now has a larger fleet in 1419.
- There are now many tiny alliances of states around the Ottoman Empire to prevent them from being absorbed by the Hungarian or Polish power blocs.
- The Ottoman Empire now has slightly different relations to its neighbors.
- Central Asian states somewhat tweaked in 1419.
- Oman now has trade posts in Quatar and Damman to prevent silly European colonies there.
- Corrected known provinces for Oman.
- Brunei now has another province.
- Assam is now Buddhist/Bengali and owns the Kachin province.
- Samarkand is now mongol rather than Uzbekh.
- RotW tech level a bit higher in 1492.
- Habsburgs in 1617 now have Hungarian core provinces.
- Afghanistan may no longer appear before 1600.
- Vijayanagar can no longer revolt after 1650.

*********
* Events
*********

- Events can now be targetted to province owners.
- Three new event commands added: war, technology and independence.
- Many events changed to make use of the new "war", "independence" and "tech" event commands.
- Lot of new historical events added for Byzantium, England, Nippon, Bosnia, Cyprus, Chagatai, Delhi, Mughals, Tibet, Ireland, Vijayanagar, Walachia, Kazakhs, Kleve, Bavaria, Brandenburg, Cologne, Pfaltz, Mamluks, Bohemia, Greece, Norway, Trebizond and Hungary.
- Creation of Russia events have been changed.
- American Revolution has been much improved and should likely provide a more historical USA.
- Dutch Independence have been completely rewritten and should now create a viable Netherlands.
- Spanish unification have been changed.
- Dissolution of Golden Horde and Timurid Empire made more severe.
- Inheritance of Burgundy have been tweaked.
- Turkey now starts in the Orthodox tech group, but most likely falls to Muslim around 1615.
- There is now a very slight chance that China gets the muslim tech group around 1450.
- "Persia is Resurrected" event now offers an alternative.
- Fixed a small bug in the "Sacking of Moscow" event.
- Event 3517 for Prussia now uses the correct event text.
- The restoration of the French kings events should now work correctly.
- England now gets an Anglia CoT with the Admiralty event.
- The "Spanish Wedding" event no longer leads to vassalization of Spain or Austria to make sure they keep using their diplomatic options.
- The Portuguese "The Duke of Coimbra" event no longer gives eternal revolt risk.
- Two events (of minor importance) for Brandenburg disabled until the correct text can be found.
- Luxemburg's incorporation into Burgundy should now work better.
- "Repatriation of the Netherlands" event now specifically requires the Holland province in the trigger.
- Loads of new random events added, which should alter the random event balance quite a lot.

*******************
* Generic Bugfixes
*******************
- You can now ask to join alliance of an AI nation even when that leader lack a diplomat.
- Centers of Trade should now come correctly from events.
- The list of potential vassals is now correct even when you are at war and got territory occupied.
- No Center of Trade will be in same color as empty provinces now.
- Napoleonic ships moving northwest should no longer be invisible.
- The shields and flags of W?zburg and Brabant have been fixed.
- Waked monarchs and leaders should now come at correct dates.
- Monarch leaders will never defect in civil wars anymore.
- Stability increase bonus is now applied correctly in all cases.
- Gaining buildings and manufactories from events should now always work.
- Ships built in Ghuangzhou should now be able to access the sea.
- Events should now show the rollover correctly on the ledger screen too.
- Peaceoffer value should no longer be overwritten by long country names.
- The rightclick shortcut should now work properly for all pages in the ledger.
- Creating a vassal should no longer give weird side effects.
- Allies should no longer be able to steal huge amounts of land in a peacedeal when you have conquered the opponent.
- There should no longer be a possibility for a country to take a province controlled by a 3rd party in a peace offer anymore.
- The "atwar" scripting trigger should now work with the argument "no". This means that some events will now occurr at the correct times.
- Palette on Kongo's shield fixed.
- The artwork depicting where there is landconnection across bodies of water is now shown correctly.
- Some revolters (USA, Jerusalem, and the religious factions.) now always start with the correct culture and religion.

*******
* Misc
*******
- All historical description texts revised.
- Many minor scenario and event fixes too small to mention, and a batch of minor bugfixes.

[yin26]

Here's the thing: If you like to actually learn a bit about history as you play a game with some honest to God challenges and not lose money on a crippled horse, Paradox is the best bet in Vegas.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by yin26
Here's the thing: If you like to actually learn a bit about history as you play a game with some honest to God challenges and not lose money on a crippled horse, Paradox is the best bet in Vegas.

I think Yin actually praising something would probably send some of the civ3 people catatonic. It might even be worthy of a line in the apolyton news. Mark?

And a big on the patch. Still don't have EU2 (Grrrr EB!) but that looks most impressive.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Chronus

1) A type of double standard exists in these forums. Firaxis is cursed for not testing its product and releasing such "shoddy work". Paradox, on the other hand, is not only forgiven for their buggy initial release, but PRAISED for all the patches that had to be done (and still don't work, IMOHO). If Firaxis were to make Civ 3 100% perfect with patches, will they get the same response from the consumers?

2) NEVER underestimate the power of good PR. I haven't seen this first hand from Paradox but from what I read, it sounds like they really got this act together. I was so inspired by what others have said that I was actually considering giving EU2 a chance! Unfortunately, I found EU rather substandard and the comments above about EU2 have frightened me off. Still, I'll keep my eyes open for future developments.

1) Only superficially true.

Yes, both games are buggy, but Paradox´ is an infinitely more ambitious design: A true history simulation, while CivIII is more of a child´s game! Let´s get to the point: Everything CivIII really had to offer was the polish, and not even that was satisfying. Of course, I, personally, would be more forgiving with a truly grand project like EU, if they don´t get it right immediately.

2) I have yesterday visited their website for the first time, ever. Before that, their PR hadn´t reached me. But I have had EUI for more than half a year, and it´s brilliant (with the exception of the AI, admittedly). But the game has wonderful depth and atmosphere. As soon as I hear they have a challenging computer opponent, I will buy EUII, definitely.

[Chronus]

1) Only superficially true.

Yes, both games are buggy, but Paradox´ is an infinitely more ambitious design: A true history simulation, while CivIII is more of a child´s game! Let´s get to the point: Everything CivIII really had to offer was the polish, and not even that was satisfying. Of course, I, personally, would be more forgiving with a truly grand project like EU, if they don´t get it right immediately.

Well . . . you're basing your whole argument on opinion which is how double standards are sometimes created. My point simply revolved around the "bug" issue, not how someone felt about one game or the other. If someone is not as forgiving toward Firixas because they like EU and not Civ3 . . . that's fine (and human nature). But to thrash Civ 3 for bugs and not EU is still a double standard, REGARDLESS OF OPINION. That's kind of the basis I was going on.

[yin26]

ravagon: LOL!

As for this bug issue, the fact is: When I see the bugs in EU2, I have well-founded belief that Paradox will fix them. When I see them in Civ3, it's simply impossible to know, so the same number and degree of bugs in both games will result in quite a different public response based on perceptions of the developer.

I have faith in Paradox. I have very little in Firaxis. That will, of course, heavily determine my response to 'issues.'

[Kyle]

Double standard, possibly. I enjoyed Civ3 while I played it (haven't since I got EU2). The reason most EU fans are probably willing to forgive several patches and bugs is due to what we see as a revolutionary game whose gameplay is unmatched. When it works (which is most of the time), EU is the most enjoyment I've had from a game.


Civ3, on the other hand, is something I've done for years on end with Civ2.


And Uglyduck can probably confirm or deny this, but from what I heard from beta testers, EU2 wasn't ready to go out, but pressure from Strategy First forced it out.

[uglyduck]

Originally posted by Kyle


And Uglyduck can probably confirm or deny this, but from what I heard from beta testers, EU2 wasn't ready to go out, but pressure from Strategy First forced it out.

As you know - I always stick to the facts and the truth on the EU Forums and I will here

It wasnt pressure from SF that bought the game out too early. They just went ahead and released it over the heads of Paradox and the Beta Team! Believe me both parties (Paradox and the Beta Team) were surprised and dismayed at the decision.
However SF call the tune in their distribution area so Paradox responded issued a first patch (1.01) for the commercial version within a couple of days.
The patch was just meant to fix serious issues and to make
the game playable. Playable but not, in the minds of Paradox or the Beta Team, ideal by any means.
Paradox and the Beta Team then worked hard and produced the 1.02 patch. Unfortunately Paradox, in their haste to please their fans, sent the patch to SF too early. There hadnt been time to test it and a major bug was found *after* SF received the patch.
SF were told that the patch was no good and Paradox produced a fixed one (still called 1.02). This time it was properly tested and then sent to SF.
Somehow SF have managed to put up for download the aborted 1.02 and that is what people have downloaded!
Paradox have informed SF and SF are putting the copyright routines into the "good" 1.02. Until it is returned from SF Paradox cannot put a copy up for download as it *must* have the SF copyright routines inserted.
All in all - mistakes were made by people trying to rush things out. There is an old saying "more haste-less speed". It certainly applied here

[Chronus]

When I see the bugs in EU2, I have well-founded belief that Paradox will fix them.

More proof on the importance of PR. I really must commend Paradox for this.

I don't think EU is a bad game . . . I just wish I could enjoy it like the rest of you folks do.

It wasnt pressure from SF that bought the game out too early. They just went ahead and released it over the heads of Paradox and the Beta Team!

I wish these distributing companies wouldn't do that. Don't they see the long term consequences of such practices? Is their cash flow and such always that close to the red line?

[Comrade Tribune]

Chronus, I´ll bite again.

No, I don´t have double standards, EU and CivIII is like apples and tomatoes. They belong into different categories, and in that case, treating them differently is not a double standard, it´s simply fair, therefore: Not guilty, your honour!

With a beer-and-bretzel game like Axis-and-Allies, Risk or CivIII, everything that counts is really: Is it balanced? Is it bug-free? Does it have a strong AI? Does it look good? Has it replay value?

CivIII isn´t very well balanced, far from bug-free, AI is quite strong, OK, units look good, but terrain and leaders don´t, replay value is not great, imo. So, apart from nicely animated units and a halfway decent AI, there is not much to recommend about CivIII.

On the other hand, EU is a pretty serious simulation that belongs in a category of its own, because I can´t quite think of any other game that tries to simulate 300 years of history, and here different things count: How hard do they try for realism?, is perhaps the most important. That a game of this scope is buggy is practically to be expected before the first 5 patches, so it´s only fair to be more tolerant here than if this were a chessgame or Risk or CivIII.

Same with AI: A simulator is like a sandbox to play with, and, of course, with hindsight you should do better than your historical counterpart, if you aren´t dumb (and know something or other about the period). Half of the fun is your being a spectator and player at the same time (think roleplaying), so competition becomes less important. With a simple game, competition is everything there is, but with a simulator, things are different.

If CivIII were more of a simulator and less like Risk and such, I would be way more forgiving about bugs and issues, so I really have the same standards in both cases.