Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
Where? Where does pdx say that CK was develop with the purpose of roleplaying while EU wasn't? Quotes?
"Your legacy awaits. Choose your noble house and lead your dynasty to greatness in a Middle Ages epic that spans generations. War is but one of many tools to establish your reign, as real strategy requires expert diplomatic skill, mastery of your realm, and true cunning. Crusader Kings III continues the popular series made by Paradox Development Studio, featuring the widely acclaimed marriage of immersive grand strategy and deep, dramatic medieval ROLEPLAYING."
EU4
"Paradox Development Studio is back with the fourth installment of the award-winning Europa Universalis series. This classic GRAND STRATEGY game gives you control of a nation through four dramatic centuries. Rule your land and dominate the world with unparalleled freedom, depth and historical accuracy. Write a new history of the world and build an empire for the ages."
store page
Your land. Your own land. That is your character.
And btw: There isn't anything about that EU wasn't developed with the intent of roleplaying. That's just your interpretation. So, no, pdx doesn't say this. On the contrary: It does say: "Rule your land." Which is rp-ing par excellence.
Besides that: Maybe you should read carefully next time before coming into a discussion and stating someone would misunderstand something.
If you would read again, then you would see that my statement was: You can rp EU 4 quite as easy as CK 2 (which you confirmed, btw) - followed by the response in which the other guy said: That's wrong. Because there would be no mechanics to allow for that (which is wrong, btw).
Fact is: You can rp EU 4 quite as easy as CK 2, because all those mechanics allow for it. And because pdx did state it: "Rule your land."
No. And by saying this you're just trolling.
You can rp EU 4 quite as easy as CK 2.
If someone now states: "Wrong!", then he is wrong. Plain and simple.
Which, and I repeat that, you did confirm.
So - nothing to argue about but you wanted to argue (while confirming my initial take on this (and my take on why this other guy was wrong in calling it wrong)). Pointless discussion - moreso because you already backed my statement in your first response.
Reading helps a lot.
Now that is intriguing. I can see the ruler traits and personalities as being roleplayable, which could lead to an interesting campaign, but would you care to elaborate how to roleplay with the other examples you mentioned?
The same way as with ruler traits: Treating those nation characteristics as traits.
For example: Religion.
Would you say that the anglican religion is inferior to, let's say, catholic? I'm pretty sure, your answer would be: Of course.
And from a gameplay (i.e. gamey) perspective that's true. But if you play England and want to recreate what Henry VIII did, then it's a no brainer. I mean: England and anglican - it's already in the names. Following the historical approach. Or just love to have many wives as a christian ruler (if your current ruler has some traits that would reflect this desire, that would be even more fitting). Or...etc.
To further on this: Let's say you want to have a deep religious state in which state almost equals religion, then there are the estates to help you in this.
From a gameplay (i.e. gamey) perspective it wouldn't be too wise to go full bonkers on religious privileges (on the expanse of your own crownland or the other groups). But for rp-purposes? And you don't have to choose all privileges - you can just go by the names of them. What would suit a religious nation best? Or what would suit your interpretation best? Some clergy land rights, religious state (if you want to go the full mile), clerical ministers (if we're talking about anglican than this is almost mandatory), expansionist zealotry to spice things up? Or religious culture? Or monopolies on trade goods? You have 4 slots to fill - choose whatever you would prefer. A wet dream for roleplayers. (Considering trade goods - there you have the opportunity to rp it into a anglican trade republic, so to speak. I mean, theocracies (rp-ing) is nice and such, but church and money? That's pure synergy.)
To further on this:
Going full in on religious ideas when choosing your first idea group. Humanist as second choice? Anglicans are nice people, I've heard. So that would be a no-brainer, too. Unless of course you want to turn your religious utopia into an inquisition-like terror state (in which men HAVE TO HAVE many women in their lifes...and therefore dying pretty young). Especially when starting to colonize and exploiting your new happy population of happy natives who are happily working at your behalf and happily worshipping the one true god: Henry VIII. (In this case, Admin could be the way to go, because everyone knows: Bureaucracy is hell for your population.)
And because we're already a trade republic (with happy people) economic and expansionist (for even more happy people willingly joining the one true faith) ideas would be logical choices.
Choosing appropriate policies would be next.
And because everyone loves to have many women, it's natural that you want to spread this glorious religion to your neighbours. A french anglican church? Yes, of course. I mean...they are french. They love women. Why should they suffer under the laws of an old guy in Rome?
Spread love to your friends. Make them happy, too. As happy as those natives dying happily living in your colonies.
Rp. Do what you want.
And this was just one example. There are as many examples as your imagination allows for it to be. Just thinking what sort of country you want to create (in Vic 2 it's even more satisfying with all the internal politics, but EU 4 does a great job in providing many mechanics that allow you to tinker around and create your own utopia/dystopia/whatever you want to create).
I see the ruler traits as roleplayable, because they let you act/react according to them throughout the game, but something like Religion and Estates are effectively a one-time commitment during a campaign, without much room for interaction based on them. So it comes back to the ruler traits eventually and how committed are you going to be to them, considering they are random? If your ruler becomes tolerant during an aggression war to force your religion on others, would you just stop or go with your initial plan?
The biggest question is though, which is also a question a tall player has to ask themself: What exactly can i do during the game to make it interesting enough for me to be invested in?
Crusader Kings has the advantage of offering many mechanics that have very little to do with simple conquest, but rather support the roleplaying of your character, which means that the land you control yourself is of secondary concern, so a campaign starting as vassal with just a county can be as interesting as starting as a king. The roleplaying is supported with ingame mechanics.
Now if i start as Ulster in EU4, i literally have to annex something to not die to Scotland or England. There is no way around it, no mechanic in the game that would allow me to live just as OPM Ulster. But if i annex the whole of Ireland, i may be able to ally France and they are usually enough to deter England or Scotland from attacking me and thus i gain the freedom of being able to do what i want. I basically gain the freedom of roleplaying after i was forced to do what the game wants me to do.
Roleplay imagination is not quite the same as roleplay supported by ingame mechanics.
The same would be true for CK 2. Imagine having an event which straight up deletes one of your traits. At this point you would have to abandon your rp in regards to this specific trait, too. That's why traits alone don't make a roleplaying experience.
That's where the game mechanics come into play.
Those and the, as you called them, one time commitments. Those are basically traits that stay with you (and thus can be used to roleplay them without any worries in regards to loosing them (either by events or by death)).
What do I mean by this?
Let's take admin ideas for example. I unlock the less payment perk for mercs. It's a one time thing to unlock it. But it stays in game. How can I use it to roleplay? By using this perk. Excessively. Not exclusively, but excessively. Which means: Relying more on mercenaries instead of building own troops. Even if it could be less advantageous in the long run/in certain situations. Even if it would mean to tank my economy. To take loans. To go bankrupt. Maybe.
Roleplaying is about commitment. To live with the choices you take and therefore giving meaning to those. Having advantages and disadvantages by them. To go with the flow.
And in this regard those perks/traits/features you unlock by "leveling" your nation will give you a very broad potential of different playstyles. And of different disasters you enable by unlocking them.
Another example in regards to estates and the privileges which I mentioned very briefly:
Going all in on clergies, for example - to the point you're stripping nobility and merchants or your own crownland. Thus risking revolts. How to solve them?
That's the other part about the roleplaying aspect - the part you've asked about:
How to make the play interesting and how to have it stay interesting?
Exactly by choosing those traits you want to use in regards to the vision of a nation you have in mind and roll with all upcoming problems caused by this. And many of those problems can be quite hilarious. And the problem solving even more when you try to solve them in unity with the role of your nation.
A side benefit of this: You will most certainly use mechanics you never used before to solve potential problems, because you didn't see any reason to use them ever (because of being inferior or not rewarding enough in a "normal" playstyle). Now you're "forced" to do and use them when committing yourself to the role of your nation.
Basically: You have a cascading problem-problem solving-problem-problem solving-pro...etc loop which you create by just roleplaying this nation. You generate content for yourself. Without actually doing it.
And I don't know in which way you're playing CK, but for me exactly this happens there, too. Just by committing myself to the traits I unlock for my char (and here those are the traits of my nation).
(This would take your Ulster example into account, too. Rolling with this problem. Which means: Searching for ways to solve this. Maybe going the route of some irish states? Bending the knee to England? Waiting for the chance to strike when England is committed to other wars? Trying to force ally with other irish nations to try a last stand against England? There are possibilities. And even death is one.)
Such an ignorance of the concept of roleplaying baffles me. Characters don't get their traits "deleted", they evolve.
But I am pretty sure you know how wrong you are and are just baiting.
A genius losing his genius trait by a random event is evolving? Sure. Maybe use a dictionary and look up the word "devolving" in the sense of devolution.
But I'm pretty sure you're just baiting.
You couldn't be more wrong, I adore both games. However, the fact EU4 lacks the dynastic features of EU4 is a hurdle at which it falls. EU4 would benefit greatly from having that little bit of extra RP element with a dynastic tree in which we could also play our nation and experience the politics of the era more in depth. I guess it depends what sort of history you're interested in rather than the era.
I've been playing Paradox games for 21 years, starting with the first EU. I know what I'm talking about. During Crusader Kings' development, the Paradox folk said flat out that they focused on dynasty roleplaying so that it wouldn't just be "early EU."
I couldn't be more right.
CK3 is essentialy a simulation of dynasties and realms in a feudal setting. You play as a character and by extension you manage your family/dynasty. Politics (e.g, alliances) are largely determined by marriages. You don't play as a particular nation/state. Your dynasty may lose its original family possesions, gain new ones, start realms of their own etc. The game will go on as long as you have living dynasty members with feudal possesions.
In EU4 you manage a particular state rather than a character/dynasty - the game starts in the middle of the 15th century, basically the last days of feudalism and the appearance of the first centralised states. It has a much larger scope historically speaking: you witness the reformation, appearance of gunpowder, colonialism, etc. It simulates the beginning of more complex interational politics, great power blocs etc.