Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Blut Und Eisen. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
When we finish this game; Victoria 2
Topic Started: May 24 2014, 06:19 PM (502 Views)
eric292

House of Commons
You disagree goro but offer no counter argument. So.....

Now in multiplayer, there are very much many many things a player can do to have a large amount of fun with the game.

Even in single player, I am not going to knock anyone who wants to just smoke a bowl and play a 10 province milan for 400 years.

But they didn't nerf your ability to do that man.

They nerfed us min / maxxers who DO want to play the game for the war mongering and expansion.

~~~

And don't play the historical card dude.

The game is not historical, it never has been, and never will be.

It is simply a game set in the context of history. Not a "historical simulator"

There is frankly no such thing as a "historical simulator". Except history books and non-fiction documentaries about history.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
goro

House of Commons
I disagree because when you reach some point its not a challenge to beat the ai but a challenge to beat time.After 1600 the way the game was i was unbeatable even by huge coalitions.
Trying to do a word conquest always feels like a chore to me.There is no point to the game if you got no capable rivals.That's why i play multiplayer basically
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eric292

House of Commons
Amen to that goro, I still havent gone to 1820 in SP.

That's a unique aspect to these SP games though that I really like.

It is very micro intensive, and planny at first. But once you hit that critical moment it just becomes a boring land slide. Though you yourself said it is still a race against time.

So it's like Mario Kart Battle-Mode that transitions into Mario Kart Time-Trial-Mode.

Not going to disagree the time trial part is boring and sucks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naveed

House of Lords
goro,May 29 2014
03:41 PM
I disagree because when you reach some point its not a challenge to beat the ai but a challenge to beat time.After 1600 the way the game was i was unbeatable even by huge coalitions.
Trying to do a word conquest always feels like a chore to me.There is no point to the game if you got no capable rivals.That's why i play multiplayer basically

I echo that as well Goro, MP adds so much depth to the game. Single Player is barely even comparable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ragingrondo12

House of Commons
Naveed,May 29 2014
02:29 PM
With the exception of the rebel stacks (they've screwed this up before back in EU3) I like the way the new patch looks.

Oh and Mughals makes all it's money through production and trade so we should be fine.

Mughals wont be fine. In future games it will be impossible to form the Mughals, b/c to form you need to be a tribal horde, and also be reformed. However reforming moves you out of the tribal horde tech type, so.... the Mughals will never form in game realistically.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
goro

House of Commons
Just cheated to test it and you can form mughals just fine.You must not be a tribe to form it.So change governement get muslim troops conquer provinces.Then you can form mughals and your units change to indian.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Age of Discovery II (EUIV) · Next Topic »
Add Reply