McNaughton wrote:Okay Vaalen and Jarkko, you both really need to stop and actually read each other's posts before you respond to one another.
First, Jarkko, Vaalen never said that the Mexican AI conquers the United States repeatedly, but that Mexico can conquer the United States. Also, he did not say annex entirely, but rather conquer (which can be anything from winning a series of wars and annexing what it can). Both of you agree that this can happen from quotes from both posts, so I really do not see why this is being argued?
Second, Vaalen, you are basing opinion as fact. The removal of historic leaders is a design choice rather than a mistake. Every innovative development is always questioned when it breeches the status-quo, which is why the world is not as innovative as it could be (i.e., the dreams of the 1960s of hover cars, jet packs and super-sonic airliners never came to fruition). There is no right or wrong here, just preference. It allows for each game to be played without the benefit of hindsight knowing that all you have to do is wait for your good historic leaders to walk on up, so you can go off to conquer the world at a whim. There are many ways to do things, and this is one of them. Right or wrong has no place in this decision.
Third, Jarkko, you are putting a fair bit of personal attack son Vaalen "Indeed. Or if you have played the game at all or just made up stuff", "Seems you have not played V2 at all". Listeners would have a lot more respect for your point of view should you not attack him personally, nor will he take your points very well if he feels you are not attacking his ideas, but rather attacking his right to have ideas.
Fourth, Vaalen, graphics are a personal preference. I for one find some of the best games have the worst graphics. A matter of opinion and design. Some people hate the new VgN map when it is compared to other maps. I personally think that visualizations are somewhat trivial unless it affects the actual use of the aspects of the game (i.e., graphics make the interface difficult to use), or are not good at providing information (i.e., graphics get in the way of knowing things).
Fifth, Jarkko, the statement that Victoria 2 has historic leaders is misleading. While it is true, scenarios all start off with histoirc leaders in place, the general process of the game requires their replacement to be done with randomized leaders. Any historic leader will eventually die off or retire within 10 years or so of the start, resulting in the remaining 80 or so years to be played with randomly generated leaders. Modders are at work to implement them, but this intentional game design to eliminated historic leaders is true. Not that I have a major opinion on it one way or the other, it is a way to solve the problem of predictability of a historic game. An innovative means, but honestly, for all true purposes of gameplay historic leaders were removed from Victoria 2.
Sixth, Vaalen, the 'silent majority' argument is really a way in putting pressure on without any proof. You are totally allowed to have your opinions, but you cannot honestly speak up for 'the majority of people'. You can honestly speak for yourself, and your own opinions, but not honestly about a massive movement of people.
Basically, for both of you, and anyone else in the battle between Victoria 2 and VgN, you can discuss the comparisons in two ways. Prop up your choice, by bashing the other (i.e., focus on the negatives of one), or prop up your choice by supporting what you like (i.e., focus on the positives of one). In all of my game development and supporting years, you will aways have people willing to go and say what is wrong about your product, no matter what choice you make, it will not please everyone.
It is the honest truth that a game cannot be the same for everyone. You two will argue forever, because you aren't really looking at what each other is honestly saying, and you are saying things that do not need to be said.
McNaughton, I am a little confused by your response. Perhaps you could clarify it for me.
First, where did I say that it was a mistake to leave out the historical leaders ? I know it was a design decision, and Paradox has a right to make it. It is a decision that goes against my preference, which I have a right to express. Just like someone who likes the decision can also express it.
Second, I agree with you that graphics are a preference, and that there is no right or wrong here. I happen to greatly prefer the graphics for troops that I happened to see on PON screenshots to the troop graphics in Victoria. That was all I was saying. I have no problem with anyone liking the Victoria graphics better.
Third, Where did I say that the majority agrees with me, or talk about the silent majority? I mentioned the posts on the Victoria 2 forum as a response to Jarkkos accusations, so anyone can see that others have posted about similar occurrences in the game. That does not mean they are the majority, or that I speak for the majority.
Fourth, Where did I bash or personally attack Jarkko?
I am perfectly willing to consider what you are saying, and it would help me to do so if you could answer the above points.
Please Rafiki don't kill me 
Just like I am sure 1.03 will be the "perfect" (as far as anything gets perfect in games...) for ROP, I am quite sure 1.03 will also improve the way people view V2 
