Yeah, same. Plausibility is the key for me, not whether something historical or ahistorical. I'm perfectly happy with outcomes that bear no resemblence to our history, provided there is a logical and plausible path that lead to those outcomes.
Do you enjoy wildly ahistorical situations or no?
- Thread starter AllThat4Nothing
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yeah, same. Plausibility is the key for me, not whether something historical or ahistorical. I'm perfectly happy with outcomes that bear no resemblence to our history, provided there is a logical and plausible path that lead to those outcomes.
I tend to like historical outcomes more, especially in relation to blobs; byzantines going on a rampage from 1066 or Mongols not doing their bit tends to annoy me. Similarly i am yet to see norse prosper from the 769 start.
But I am all for ahistorical outcomes as long as they are belivable.
But I am all for ahistorical outcomes as long as they are belivable.
I would love a plausible setup, where geography (having an Empire on both sides of the Alps is pretty tough to hold together... while Hungary or Bohemia have easier times holding their "natural boundaries"), fortifications (unless captured or neutralized castles are a serious headache for the supply, there was a reason why they built them) legitimacy/tradition (the fact that each Capet king is followed by his son and there where multiple dynasties in the HRE played a quite a significant role in why the former emerged as a centralized state and the latter collapsed to petty fiefdoms) plays their role. Whether the AI could handle such a system is questionable.
Yes which is why I like playing the Civ series as well. I enjoy building a globe-spanning Incan Empire or whatever.
But in a series that tries to reflect history more accurately I prefer less ahistorical results, although I'm not in favour of railroading.
It should be possible to form Prydain starting as some 2-bit Welsh chieftain, just not at all easy.
But in a series that tries to reflect history more accurately I prefer less ahistorical results, although I'm not in favour of railroading.
It should be possible to form Prydain starting as some 2-bit Welsh chieftain, just not at all easy.
In my current game, the world has gone mad. Catholic MA has been <10 for a few centuries, due to three causes:
1. Charlemagne adopted the Fraticelli heresy and succesfully spread it
2. The Germanics, the Finns, AND the Altaics have all reformed their religions, and are devestating Europe with raids and GHW's
3. The Byzantine Emperor has been a Jew for the last hundred years
Other interesting oddities:
The Copts have revolted, conquering all of Arabia and Egypt
Spain is split into feuding Muslim duchies
Britain (I'm playing there) is entirely Cathar, with 3 major realms: England, Essex (me), and Dal Riata.
I'm planning to do an in medias res AAR in this mess.
1. Charlemagne adopted the Fraticelli heresy and succesfully spread it
2. The Germanics, the Finns, AND the Altaics have all reformed their religions, and are devestating Europe with raids and GHW's
3. The Byzantine Emperor has been a Jew for the last hundred years
Other interesting oddities:
The Copts have revolted, conquering all of Arabia and Egypt
Spain is split into feuding Muslim duchies
Britain (I'm playing there) is entirely Cathar, with 3 major realms: England, Essex (me), and Dal Riata.
I'm planning to do an in medias res AAR in this mess.
As with all games, I enjoy being surprised each game, and hate it if a game plays out the same way each time.
If a game plays out the same way each time, I find little to no replayability in a game.
That said, a game mode called historically accurate, might be nice for CK3, where it's just a predetermined series of events for people to experience.
If a game plays out the same way each time, I find little to no replayability in a game.
That said, a game mode called historically accurate, might be nice for CK3, where it's just a predetermined series of events for people to experience.
Maybe put it beter in this way, what I am playing I love ahistoric playtrough.
But what the AI does, I hate it CM expansion as a example.
He never ever get the historic event right, frustrates me to no end, so lets say Byzantium Empire instead of attacking the Abbassids or the Muslim, turns there power and troops and rofl lmao stomp my poor Venice, before the first year is over.
So players perspectief, I like Ahistorical things even into the fantasy level.
But looking at the AI behaviour, I hate Ahistoric impossible things, like Vikings go raiding in India >.<
sure nice from players actions and I love it, but AI beter not waste my time and do the same stuff
But what the AI does, I hate it CM expansion as a example.
He never ever get the historic event right, frustrates me to no end, so lets say Byzantium Empire instead of attacking the Abbassids or the Muslim, turns there power and troops and rofl lmao stomp my poor Venice, before the first year is over.
So players perspectief, I like Ahistorical things even into the fantasy level.
But looking at the AI behaviour, I hate Ahistoric impossible things, like Vikings go raiding in India >.<
sure nice from players actions and I love it, but AI beter not waste my time and do the same stuff
Ah! Good to know; I think I was indeed mixing the two wars up. The Romans were always quite awkward on the sea, I seem to recall (e.g. the First Punic War, the campaign against the younger Pompey, the amount of time Carausius was able to hold out in Britannia, etc.), so it's hard to think of Rome as wielding naval supremacy over anyone, let alone Carthage. But it does make sense: how else could Rome have seized Corsica and Sardinia from Carthage during the Mercenary Wars, if not Carthaginian naval weakness relative to Rome?
Mea culpa!
Me bene monuistis!