The Victoria 2 Trap: Avoiding the Danger of "Over-Correction" for Project Caesar

[Lindaegan]

I'd rather have deep gameplay only in Europe than shallow everywhere.

Cool. I wouldn't. Now we are at an impasse, because we are discussing irrelevant things (our individual wants).

More seriously, I am not suggesting we have shallow gameplay everywhere. I am saying that deep mechanics should be implemented everywhere from the get-go. Locking tags outside a random geographical construct for absolutely no reason, on the other hand, ranks high amongst the worst ideas I have ever heard.

You can easily add tags with mods. But you cannot add special "NPC" mechanics that would enhance gameplay elsewhere. For example "offscreen" powerful China works better as a threat than real China played by AI. The game can spawn armies and throw at you and unlike AI China it could be a real threat.

If you say so. What if I wanted to play as China, would there be an "offscreen" Europe?

Also, are you seriously going to sit here and suggest a CK-esque map in a game set during the Age of Discovery? Are you taking the piss? If you aren't, then I sincerely have no idea what you even want.

 

[Testerian2]

Cool. I wouldn't. Now we are at an impasse because we are discussing irrelevant things (our individual wants).

Sure. I said from the beginning this is my preference. And acknowledge that obviously, many people like Civilisation-like solution to this problem.

More seriously, I am not suggesting we have shallow gameplay everywhere. I am saying that deep mechanics should be implemented everywhere from the get-go. Locking tags outside a random geographical construct for absolutely no reason, on the other hand, ranks high amongst the worst ideas I have ever heard.

There is a reason and it destroyed my enjoyment of CK3, I:R, and presumably Vic3.
On the other hand, I immensely enjoyed CK2 which did just that: restricted play of tribes and republics until they were properly implemented with DLC.

If you say so. What if I wanted to play as China, would there be an "offscreen" Europe?

Find a game like 3 Kingdoms that does just that. Or find a mod to CK2 if there is one.

Also, are you seriously going to sit here and suggest a CK-esque map in a game set during the Age of Discovery? Are you taking the piss? If you aren't, then I sincerely have no idea what you even want.

My response was about I:R tribes implementation. But if I remember well republics and tribes were not playable in vanilla EU4 either? Not sure about that.

 

[mrflagio]

Doesn't it target the Papal State tag by name?

No.

 

[Testerian2]

No.

That is interesting because in the past it did.
But You are right that currently at least it is possible to have a papacy without the tag.

Papacy - Europa Universalis 4 Wiki

eu4.paradoxwikis.com

 

[mrflagio]

That is interesting because in the past it did.
But You are right that currently at least it is possible to have a papacy without the tag.

Papacy - Europa Universalis 4 Wiki

eu4.paradoxwikis.com

How would that be tag magic anyway? Any Catholic country uses papacy mechanics in both CK2 and EU4.

 

[Oglesby]

I am saying that deep mechanics should be implemented everywhere from the get-go.

Sure everyone would like that. The problem is that by the time that thing is released it would be obsolete. This is the problem.

You get lets say 20 widgets to allocate. You can have 2 tens, 4 fives, 10 twos or 20 ones. You cannot have 20 tens or even 20 fives.

 

[WeissRaben]

My response to that would be that then there is no point to playing any country, specifically. Like in Vic 3, CKIII, etc., you will be incentivized to play specific ones for their versatility: why play as any random person when you can play as Jarl Haisteinn if you want to reform your religion and do weird culture stuff worldwide? Why play a specific country when you can just play Korea in the Victorian age - which is essentially the same as Vietnam, or Japan, or Europe, for that matter.

You should be able to turn an Empire into a trade-focused Empire - there are societal values, there are customizable policies, etc.

But you should have to do so within the framework of the country you are playing. Could Byzantium really have just pressed an abstract button to "become a merchant republic" and suddenly lose all of its nation-specific issues (imperial authority, the orthodox church influence, etc.)?

No, but only because there should be no button for that. If, instead, are you asking if the Byzantine merchant class should be able to slowly rip power away from the nobles and then the Basileus himself, reducing those technically still-governing people to figureheads while the merchants actually run the whole show, then yeah. Absolutely. 100%. And once it does - something that, again, shouldn't be "pressing a button", but an involved process working through the tools of the game - then yes, you should have a maritime republic by all intents and purposes. A Byzantine-flavored one, to be sure - with the Basileus still holding nominal power, for example - but a merchant republic all the same.

 

[eddin2]

My issue with tag specific mechanics is that you are basically forced to play certain nations because those are the ones that are "fun" and the others are "generic". There are too many nations to build unique things for all of them.

I generally prefer there way they've been going where there are foundational mechanics and some unique starting conditions but from there, any nation can do whatever it wants. Why should I be forced to play as Prussia if I want to have a heavily militarized society? Why should I have to play as Venice if I want to be a maritime republic?

You can play as more militarilly orientated society, just not with Prussias mechanics. Why, because it was something specific for them, with all their historic, religious, economic and geographic aspects, not something which has been decided with 2 or 3 laws and decrets. Same with Venices serene republic uniqueness.

 

[Vlad123]

You can play as more militarilly orientated society, just not with Prussias mechanics. Why, because it was something specific for them, with all their historic, religious, economic and geographic aspects, not something which has been decided with 2 or 3 laws and decrets. Same with Venices serene republic uniqueness.

True but if i gain (for exemple) this laws, this trade tradition, have the burges very power...i can turn in a repubblic like venice or genoa

 

[Arizal]

So I get from the OP that little modifiers (like in Imperator) are bad and "flavour" is good. Since Victoria II didn't have a lot of "flavour", the OP doesn't seem to have liked that.

In my honest opinion, "flavour" as in TAG-specific mechanics ought to be avoided. Why? Because it makes certain events outside of the game instead of flowing from it. It makes countries themselves having a character instead of the people inside them. It fuels that fantasy that countries have essential qualities. And this idea did a lot of harm in the past, since it allows people to then claim that their country/culture is "stronger" than another one.

To me, it's more than a game design disagreement. It's a philosophical opposition, a visceral cry against racism and blatant misrepresentatino. So much so that I really "hate" flavour made in the form of mission trees and national ideas. It sends the wrong message to thousands of people who claim to like history. The excuse that this is a game doesn't hold water, if this medium promotes a caricatural version of history.

I get that to correctly represent certain events that happened near the beginning of the game, you need to place countries in an initial situation. However they trigger the start of the hundred years war, though, I don't feel like you need a specific mechanic to tell this story. Rather, you need a dynastic system sufficiently robust to entertain the possibility that England would claim France's throne since the Capet dynasty died out recently and there was an obvious dynastic link with the Plantagenet in England.

A lot of the enjoyment I can feel from a game comes down to how complex its main mechanics are. Societal values seem to me like a way to represent a lot of countries differences from the start. Laws and government reforms too. Ideally, any country should be able to have any setting with time and patience, meaning there shouldn't be mechanics restricted to TAGs, but some should be a lot closer to access them than others based on their internal setup at the start of the game.

For those things that aren't represented from the start of the game, like the Hussites or the reformation, general mechanics with the possibility for regional divergence (such as, if an heresy starts in Bohemia, it may be called "hussite") sounds like a nice cherry on top of an already robust simulation, but I want the game to go no further. Same for historical events. They may be called like their historical counterpart, but you need to keep in reserve an equal generic brand : if you have the English war of the roses, keep a similar civil war for other countries. If you have militarization for an eventual Prussia, let other countries have access to it.

 

[Lindaegan]

You can play as more militarilly orientated society, just not with Prussias mechanics. Why, because it was something specific for them, with all their historic, religious, economic and geographic aspects, not something which has been decided with 2 or 3 laws and decrets. Same with Venices serene republic uniqueness.

This is extremely flawed logic. For one, was the region that would one day become "Prussia" already militarized in 1337/1444? And, even then, what were all these factors? We do not, and cannot, have perfect historical information - especially to answer the "why"s.

 

[eddin2]

This is extremely flawed logic. For one, was the region that would one day become "Prussia" already militarized in 1337/1444? And, even then, what were all these factors? We do not, and cannot, have perfect historical information - especially to answer the "why"s.

I didn't say we have perfect information, but there's enough to know, Prussia didn't become "Army with the state" randomly, and that it couldn't happened anywhere.

Of course, in theory it could, but, in theory, Buthan could send first man to the Moon, but it didn't. And if you analize it, you'll find out why the USA did it first (and why the USSR was main competitor), and there's only handfull of country that could do it at all (even today).

 

[Lindaegan]

And if you analize it, you'll find out why the USA did it first (and why the USSR was main competitor)

You are reframing the question for no reason. Remove hindsight from the equation and this is completely nonsensical. Today, we say it is "obvious." Do you think someone in 1569 would say the same, four hundred years before the event? What do you think they would say? "Yes, in four hundred years there will be two states that do not exist yet that will race to do so"? "The reasons for this competition may be found in ideological differences (neither ideology has been developed yet, but trust me) and a massive worldwide war that occurred in the decades prior"?

I didn't say we have perfect information, but there's enough to know, Prussia didn't become "Army with the state" randomly, and that it couldn't happened anywhere.

Then why? Why did it happen there, and nowhere else? A wide variety of factors that almost all occurred after the start date. What if Anna and John Sigismund had never married? What if Albert Frederick had managed to have an adult son? What if Frederick William I had been just as useless as his father? And these are the most obvious possibilities, there are millions of smaller ones. Who says no other state in the world could have possibly militarized? Of course, nowhere was it going to happen with that exact Prussian flair, but that is not what anyone is suggesting. Do you really think no other states could have militarized in the general sense? Why do you think that?

 

[emperorgamer11]

No, but only because there should be no button for that. If, instead, are you asking if the Byzantine merchant class should be able to slowly rip power away from the nobles and then the Basileus himself, reducing those technically still-governing people to figureheads while the merchants actually run the whole show, then yeah. Absolutely. 100%. And once it does - something that, again, shouldn't be "pressing a button", but an involved process working through the tools of the game - then yes, you should have a maritime republic by all intents and purposes. A Byzantine-flavored one, to be sure - with the Basileus still holding nominal power, for example - but a merchant republic all the same.

I don't disagree with this; but then they'd have to implement a good political simulation (which I'd personally love, but I don't think will happen considering every country will automatically have a parliament). I believe that *every country should be able to become everything, potentially* - but that you should have to play that out from their specific starting conditions.

Countries should feel different. Going with the merchant republic idea - becoming a merchant republic as Byzantium and, I don't know, feudal Poland, should work very differently. Not necessarily in terms of mechanics, but certainly in terms of time frames, in terms of what exactly you need to do, etc.

I guess I just really want to avoid a situation like vic 3 (where you just have to wait for a bunch of EU4-siege laws to change politics "gradually", but every country ends up the same). You want dynamic emergent gameplay that allows every country to go into any path you want? Okay, based. Make it so that you have to (for example) develop a strong merchant marine and strong burgher production if you want to become a republic. Add things *in the game* - I wouldn't even mind getting rid of ALL tag-specific content if they implemented that well, I just think that this wasn't done well in CK3, Vic3, or even their government reforms in EU4.

 

[emperorgamer11]

So I get from the OP that little modifiers (like in Imperator) are bad and "flavour" is good. Since Victoria II didn't have a lot of "flavour", the OP doesn't seem to have liked that.

In my honest opinion, "flavour" as in TAG-specific mechanics ought to be avoided. Why? Because it makes certain events outside of the game instead of flowing from it. It makes countries themselves having a character instead of the people inside them. It fuels that fantasy that countries have essential qualities. And this idea did a lot of harm in the past, since it allows people to then claim that their country/culture is "stronger" than another one.

To me, it's more than a game design disagreement. It's a philosophical opposition, a visceral cry against racism and blatant misrepresentatino. So much so that I really "hate" flavour made in the form of mission trees and national ideas. It sends the wrong message to thousands of people who claim to like history. The excuse that this is a game doesn't hold water, if this medium promotes a caricatural version of history.

I get that to correctly represent certain events that happened near the beginning of the game, you need to place countries in an initial situation. However they trigger the start of the hundred years war, though, I don't feel like you need a specific mechanic to tell this story. Rather, you need a dynastic system sufficiently robust to entertain the possibility that England would claim France's throne since the Capet dynasty died out recently and there was an obvious dynastic link with the Plantagenet in England.

A lot of the enjoyment I can feel from a game comes down to how complex its main mechanics are. Societal values seem to me like a way to represent a lot of countries differences from the start. Laws and government reforms too. Ideally, any country should be able to have any setting with time and patience, meaning there shouldn't be mechanics restricted to TAGs, but some should be a lot closer to access them than others based on their internal setup at the start of the game.

For those things that aren't represented from the start of the game, like the Hussites or the reformation, general mechanics with the possibility for regional divergence (such as, if an heresy starts in Bohemia, it may be called "hussite") sounds like a nice cherry on top of an already robust simulation, but I want the game to go no further. Same for historical events. They may be called like their historical counterpart, but you need to keep in reserve an equal generic brand : if you have the English war of the roses, keep a similar civil war for other countries. If you have militarization for an eventual Prussia, let other countries have access to it.

I mean, I don't disagree - and this is not what I meant.

I also really hate mission trees, for example, and I don't think national ideas are good (they are also pointless little modifiers).

And my point about Vic 2 was that it had the perfect amount of "non-flavor" content and that we should not fall into the trap of thinking that we need more of that.

By "flavor", what I am referring to is simulating actual, real, historical processes and events that actually, really happened - rather than "Prussia gets plus discipline" or whatever. Think more so in the lines of: "isolationism mechanic for Japan" rather than "national ideas" when I am referring to flavor.
Stuff like the mandate of heaven - though it should feel less gamified - or the papacy, or specific subject types for different culture groups. Flavor can be something as simple as only Christian countries having access to PUs (which makes sense, because Muslim dynasties and titles worked in a different way). Or allowing Muslim countries to have special laws on the treatment of religious minorities, or simulating how the Protestant Reformation allowed for the dissolution of monasteries (which can have in-game impacts with regards to buildings) and more.

 

[wthree]

You can play as more militarilly orientated society, just not with Prussias mechanics. Why, because it was something specific for them, with all their historic, religious, economic and geographic aspects, not something which has been decided with 2 or 3 laws and decrets. Same with Venices serene republic uniqueness.

But those mechanics didn't exist. The Prussian military didn't watch this magic counter increase that made their military better. It's an abstraction of the reforms and improvements their military went through, but a reformed military is by no means something that only Prussia did.

Flavor can be something as simple as only Christian countries having access to PUs (which makes sense, because Muslim dynasties and titles worked in a different way). Or allowing Muslim countries to have special laws on the treatment of religious minorities, or simulating how the Protestant Reformation allowed for the dissolution of monasteries (which can have in-game impacts with regards to buildings) and more.

This is more or less my thinking. A good litmus tests should be something along the lines of which an abstract concept of the state might feasibly able to do in the context it exists in. Great reformers existed with degrees of success.



For me, far from making the game more different, hyper specificity of tags does the opposite, and leads to absolutely insanity. It just means when you play a tag, it's just the same game every time in the same order. And if I want to play a certain type of nation, I only have a few choices. It's one of my biggest gripes with the eu4 dominion DLC, where mission trees are just really obtuse in the way they're structured. Why does only Castile have this government mechanic that just gives random bonuses? And why is it contingent on owning Seville and building specific buildings there? Or the absolute absurdity of adding a brand new subject type that's only available to one country, and in one specific region of the world.

There should still be black swan events, there should still be cultural context. But should Prussia have a unique Prussian military mechanic even if Prussia is now a Zoroastrian Mongolian Republic in the Caribbean? Just because it's called Prussia?

Game play should be as emergent as possible, where mechanics aren't just different buttons that give different bonuses that are unrelated to why you have them.

I think there are already quite a few examples already in the games:
Latest iteration of Burgundian inheritance.
The gaining of the Cossack estate by any eastern tech country.


I think vicky2 did this very well. A game as Prussia felt different to one as the US, or Kano. Imagine if you could only declare war on countries as Kano, only sphere of influence as Prussia, or immigration only existed as a mechanic for the US.

 

[emperorgamer11]

But those mechanics didn't exist. The Prussian military didn't watch this magic counter increase that made their military better. It's an abstraction of the reforms and improvements their military went through, but a reformed military is by no means something that only Prussia did.



This is more or less my thinking. A good litmus tests should be something along the lines of which an abstract concept of the state might feasibly able to do in the context it exists in. Great reformers existed with degrees of success.



For me, far from making the game more different, hyper specificity of tags does the opposite, and leads to absolutely insanity. It just means when you play a tag, it's just the same game every time in the same order. And if I want to play a certain type of nation, I only have a few choices. It's one of my biggest gripes with the eu4 dominion DLC, where mission trees are just really obtuse in the way they're structured. Why does only Castile have this government mechanic that just gives random bonuses? And why is it contingent on owning Seville and building specific buildings there? Or the absolute absurdity of adding a brand new subject type that's only available to one country, and in one specific region of the world.

There should still be black swan events, there should still be cultural context. But should Prussia have a unique Prussian military mechanic even if Prussia is now a Zoroastrian Mongolian Republic in the Caribbean? Just because it's called Prussia?

Game play should be as emergent as possible, where mechanics aren't just different buttons that give different bonuses that are unrelated to why you have them.

I think there are already quite a few examples already in the games:
Latest iteration of Burgundian inheritance.
The gaining of the Cossack estate by any eastern tech country.


I think vicky2 did this very well. A game as Prussia felt different to one as the US, or Kano. Imagine if you could only declare war on countries as Kano, only sphere of influence as Prussia, or immigration only existed as a mechanic for the US.

I agree. PDX listen to him, okay?

 

[Blindbohemian]

I believe that the main danger for Project Caesar, is trying to develop some expanded version of Vicky II, tailored to the era, instead of trusting its relatively basic system and going from there.

This. Paradox has always been at its best (because video games and stories and basically everything are at their best) when making simple systems with complex interactions. EU4 is good because it’s simple, but gives rise to emergent complexity. Starting with complexity is not something Paradox has ever done well.

This kitchen sink approach to designing EU5 augurs badly.

Absolutely agree. I think modern Paradox is moving in the wrong direction with this issue of being non-specific. At first it was a move towards the right direction but we've gone too far now

I think focusing on generic versus specific flavour is a misdiagnosis of the problem that’s being surfaced. It’s worth talking about, but the problem is deeper than that.

 

[eddin2]

You are reframing the question for no reason. Remove hindsight from the equation and this is completely nonsensical. Today, we say it is "obvious." Do you think someone in 1569 would say the same, four hundred years before the event? What do you think they would say? "Yes, in four hundred years there will be two states that do not exist yet that will race to do so"? "The reasons for this competition may be found in ideological differences (neither ideology has been developed yet, but trust me) and a massive worldwide war that occurred in the decades prior"?

No, I'm not.
We are talking from todays perspective about events and decisions from the past, including prussian militarism. I was just naming an event from recent past, for comparison.

Then why? Why did it happen there, and nowhere else? A wide variety of factors that almost all occurred after the start date. What if Anna and John Sigismund had never married? What if Albert Frederick had managed to have an adult son? What if Frederick William I had been just as useless as his father? And these are the most obvious possibilities, there are millions of smaller ones. Who says no other state in the world could have possibly militarized? Of course, nowhere was it going to happen with that exact Prussian flair, but that is not what anyone is suggesting. Do you really think no other states could have militarized in the general sense? Why do you think that?

You basically just proved my point.

 

[eddin2]

But those mechanics didn't exist. The Prussian military didn't watch this magic counter increase that made their military better. It's an abstraction of the reforms and improvements their military went through, but a reformed military is by no means something that only Prussia did.

Those are game mechanics, which are maybe bad, but we were talking about specifics which lead to birth of Prussian militarism, and should it be available to any nation in game or not. I think not.

How are their represented, could it be better, more realistic, etc, is another subject.