It's my own phrasing that is bad, I meant more like fantasy, not fiction, if you understand how I mean?o
I know what you mean. I was adding to what you said, not arguing with it.
Megathread : Events, Decisions & Missions in Victoria 2
- Thread starter Galleblære
- 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.
I know what you mean. I was adding to what you said, not arguing with it.
I think when it comes to the question of events, you have to consider *how good are the tools for simulating historical development?*
I'd love to get by without events, but that requires a degree of sophistication and research that Paradox has simply shown themselves unwilling or unable to achieve. The game should be set up in such a way that the historical position is usually the most logical one to adopt, because *that's why people adopted them IRL*.
I'd love to get by without events, but that requires a degree of sophistication and research that Paradox has simply shown themselves unwilling or unable to achieve. The game should be set up in such a way that the historical position is usually the most logical one to adopt, because *that's why people adopted them IRL*.
1) Ok this is a good point. But I think it has been taken care of by the decision system. I admit that it is annoying when playing as Russia to have to start the Crimean War exactly when the event fires, so this would work better as an decision. But some events- like the Carlist War, caused by the death of a king without a male heir- isn't something you should see coming. In fact it's gamey to be able to prepare for it, so I think an event works great.
2) Events allow for the modeling of forces that aren't modeled by game mechanics. The USCA is a good example: sure, it is interesting to see it around every few games when it happens to survive, but without an event, you would NEVER see it break up into the central American states. Even though revolts are modeled in the game, the kind of total collapse the usca suffered is only doable via event.
The Balkans are another example. There was no event to form the modern states in Vicky 1, so in the grand campaign you would always see Walachia and moldava remain ottoman sattelites until 1920 rather than the formation of Bulgaria and Romania, which should at least happen SOMETIMES. You're right, humans are complicated, and it's not possible to build an engine that models every aspect of human behavior. Events are a shortcut that let the devs include things that happened irl but don't happen in the game engine.
Seriously? You really think world leaders through history adopted the most "logical" position possible to them? And if so "logical" according to whom?
Was the position Hitler took in the 1930s the most "logical" one to adopt? By whose standards? Certainly by Hitler's it was, but not by those of most of his generals, because they disagreed with him on most things. If a different person had been in charge would they have taken the same position?
Many Poles in mid-1939 thought they could beat Germany and talked about a "cavalry march to Berlin". Does that seem logical? Well, not to us in retrospect with all the information, but it must have to them. Did it make sense for them to rely on large cavalry units against the more modern German army? Well, it doesn't to us in retrospect, but it must have to them.
Did it make sense for Stalin in 1941 to not believe the allies when they warned him that Hitler was about to attack him and not make better preparations? Does it make any sense for a person playing HOI2 to take that same position in 1941 in the game and not prepare well enough?
I think people do things for many, many reasons, and people (even, or maybe especially) world leaders do just absolutely stupid things sometimes that make no sense, or they act on information that turns out to be incorrect, or they act logically in order to reach their goals but the goals themselves don't make any sense.
It can't always make sense to take the historical position taken by the country you're leading at the time in question when playing a historical game.
First of all, as mentioned, a lot of time the historical position taken was the wrong one. Secondly, we have information that people who made the decisions at the time did not have. If all the AI led nations follow the historical path their countries took in real life historically, then the player has a hugely unfair advantage and can use it to do things unhistorically and beat them.
Last edited:
Paradox should publish position papers on their philosophies and intent in developing/modeling these games.
I think that will come soon enough, once dev diaries start rolling out.
Boxer Rebillion, Cival War, and Texas and Calfornia (fully independent at least 50% of the time) and the Stock Market Crash all need to be included.
Yeah, the decision system is good. I'm all for it.
Oh, but see you can prepare for it. By checking the event files, or playing the game a few times. Though some events are setup so they trigger at different times in each game, or so that they may or may not trigger. That's a big improvement. And i agree that things like that should come unexpectedly. The Carlist Wars, if i remember correctly come right at the beginning of the game for Spain, so it's not a big deal anyway though.
What annoys me is when there are situations where you want to do something but there's an event that will come later on associated with that action that either nullifies what you achieved or makes it a lot more beneficial to have done it through or after the event.
I like in HOI2 how they eventually changed the Pearl Harbour event so that it happens when you declare on the US as Japan, but there's no event for declaring on them except for AI Japan. The more situational, the better.
I understand that, and it made sense when I first bought EU2, and I thought it was a huge improvement over EU1. But now that we have games with situational, generic events I prefer that completely.
Right, it's not going to recreate history as it happened in real life, but it's going to create something that will feel like a history. (Or, at least, when done well it will. I do have some problems with EU:Rome, for example. Way too many civil wars. And we all know about HOI3...) It will give you the kind of issues that people had to deal with historically, just not necessarily those exact issues that they did deal with historically. And it will keep you on your toes since you can't anticipate history.
Also, the games are getting more and more complex and there's more things that can be simulated through general game mechanics now that couldn't before. It's not to the point of perfect in any way, but it seems to be moving at least.
The nature of Paradox games is that they cover vast swathes of enormously complicated geopolitical, cultural, and military history. Historical events, random events and even decisions (though the last is the best, in many ways) are all stop-gaps.
Here's a link to an interesting article about political decision-making an coalition-building (actually, it's an article about a guy who works on that stuff academically, but still...). It's quite interesting. Not directly relevant to Paradox, but a sort of lite-version could go into politics and diplomacy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16Bruce-t.html
What I think is most important though, is raising the amount of possibilities for a nation while still making overwhelming success difficult.
Consider the Ottoman Empire - there's not any particularly good reason why, given the world as it was in 1399, the Ottoman Empire would have such a meteoric rise followed by long decay. The way it's been simulated is favorable events, extra cultures, and lots lots lots of cores, followed by lousy events. This is bunk - determinism because the real roots can't be identified, or maybe don't particularly exist, but people want to see history anyways.
Unfortunately, the users don't have the patience, nor does Paradox have the resources (or desire) to build a perfect geopolitical simulator. It has to move forward by innovating the way a nation is guided through time - automation, decisions, etc. are all steps in this.
I'd like to see a way, for example, for India to revolt and re-unite. I don't mean some uber-player taking a Mysore on a WC spree - I mean a legitimate, sensible, but difficult way for an independent India to emerge. It should probably have a lot of the problems that newly-formed India historically had too.
Here's a link to an interesting article about political decision-making an coalition-building (actually, it's an article about a guy who works on that stuff academically, but still...). It's quite interesting. Not directly relevant to Paradox, but a sort of lite-version could go into politics and diplomacy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16Bruce-t.html
What I think is most important though, is raising the amount of possibilities for a nation while still making overwhelming success difficult.
Consider the Ottoman Empire - there's not any particularly good reason why, given the world as it was in 1399, the Ottoman Empire would have such a meteoric rise followed by long decay. The way it's been simulated is favorable events, extra cultures, and lots lots lots of cores, followed by lousy events. This is bunk - determinism because the real roots can't be identified, or maybe don't particularly exist, but people want to see history anyways.
Unfortunately, the users don't have the patience, nor does Paradox have the resources (or desire) to build a perfect geopolitical simulator. It has to move forward by innovating the way a nation is guided through time - automation, decisions, etc. are all steps in this.
I'd like to see a way, for example, for India to revolt and re-unite. I don't mean some uber-player taking a Mysore on a WC spree - I mean a legitimate, sensible, but difficult way for an independent India to emerge. It should probably have a lot of the problems that newly-formed India historically had too.
id say have more indian revolt states and when all of them exist and england no territory or atleast very little is held by european powers the Indian minors get the option of consolidation.
I agree, but I'm guessing this does not occur because they don't want to be mired in an academic debate. It is unfortunate because I think it would help to address some of their historical theory.
The war of 1905 is a good example of that. Major historical events don't happen by chance: the outcomes of history may occur with a degree of chance and other factors, but major events take a huge number of concurrent factors to be realized.
We probably don't need to rehash the Russo-Japanese War, why it happened, and how it was one of the most significant events of the 20th century. Needless to say, it is a classic example of the PI decision system -- IF Russia meets certain parameters, Japan meets certain parameters, China and Korea do as well -- then Port Arthur should be a choice by decision.
Why go to all the work to make it a decision? Because it is a perfect example of a major event with enormous consequences.
Correct, situation would have to be
1) Korea Independent - in the end this is what the war is about - who will dominate Korea, Japan or Russia (China knocked out already in 1894 War
2) Russia in Vladivostok (caused by earlier decision - take land from China weakened by war with Britain/France)
3) Japan Civilized
4) Japan wants to establish control over Korea (caused by earlier decision to challenge Chinese dominance in Korea)
Basically you get the same effect of events, but it becomes clear to player why they happen (since you can cursor over it and see what conditions need to be met) and the can happen as soon (or as late) at the game conditions merit. That might be the 1890s, that might be the 1910s or later.
But it means that the gamer no longer has the ability to "prepare" himself for a war at the exact date and time it happens. Rather than being prepared for an attack from Japan in 1904, the Russian player will know have perhaps a decade or two (or even more) where the Japanese might take action IF the Russian player decides to meddle in East Asian affairs.
I think events should be dynamic and not static. That is, events come about via certain criteria fulfilled rather than by date. For example, some have mentioned the problems with having, for example, a scripted Russo-Japanese War if Japan remains uncivilized, has great relations with Russia, etc. It wouldn't make sense for Russia to go to war with Japan if Japan isn't even interested in Korea and doesn't even have bad relations with Russia. Therefore, I think that many historical events should be in the game like the aformentioned Russo-Japanese War but incited by "x relations between Russia AND conflicting spheres of influence AND Jingoist party in power in the Diet AND..." rather than mere date.
I think this would open up greater possibilities for the game, too. Instead of coming up with hordes of events and possibilities for alternate history thinking up every possible route and event chain, events would just simply happen by player actions and AI chance. If the player has a jingoistic party in power as the UK, if the AI has jingoistic party as Japan, if relations are sour, and the UK has only an x amount of troops in an x theatre then there is a 15% chance that the Anglo-Japanese War will happen. Comparing this event trigger to a lengthy, complicated, and tedious event chain with flags, and events and options would not only make things less complicated, but also more replayable as the player does not know ahead of time what their actions will cause (instead of the ever predictable chains like the Franco-Prussian War), and I think adds the "aura" so to speak of AI intelligence-- the AI responding to the player by his/her actions not by pre-determined event chain.
Finally, a lot of the event chains are somewhat redundant with what is actually going on in game. The event chains between France and Prussia for example, simulate the increasing strains between France and Prussia in real life, but often times strains are already supposedly great in-game without events due to Prussia's increasing military score, industrial power, neck and neck prestige, maybe adjacent colonies in Africa, etc. Often, even before the Franco-Prussian War the relations are usually around -150 or greater anyway and it would be interesting to see a war happen because, say human player as France invades Switzerland causing "x" relations to go down, triggering the "x" relations trigger necessary for the war to begin. Therefore, the war could begin for various reasons: an invasion of Belgium, a Prussian buildup of troops along the French border, etc. It would also eliminate inconsistances such as when a democratic Prussia asserts a monarachial candidate on Spain.
I think this would open up greater possibilities for the game, too. Instead of coming up with hordes of events and possibilities for alternate history thinking up every possible route and event chain, events would just simply happen by player actions and AI chance. If the player has a jingoistic party in power as the UK, if the AI has jingoistic party as Japan, if relations are sour, and the UK has only an x amount of troops in an x theatre then there is a 15% chance that the Anglo-Japanese War will happen. Comparing this event trigger to a lengthy, complicated, and tedious event chain with flags, and events and options would not only make things less complicated, but also more replayable as the player does not know ahead of time what their actions will cause (instead of the ever predictable chains like the Franco-Prussian War), and I think adds the "aura" so to speak of AI intelligence-- the AI responding to the player by his/her actions not by pre-determined event chain.
Finally, a lot of the event chains are somewhat redundant with what is actually going on in game. The event chains between France and Prussia for example, simulate the increasing strains between France and Prussia in real life, but often times strains are already supposedly great in-game without events due to Prussia's increasing military score, industrial power, neck and neck prestige, maybe adjacent colonies in Africa, etc. Often, even before the Franco-Prussian War the relations are usually around -150 or greater anyway and it would be interesting to see a war happen because, say human player as France invades Switzerland causing "x" relations to go down, triggering the "x" relations trigger necessary for the war to begin. Therefore, the war could begin for various reasons: an invasion of Belgium, a Prussian buildup of troops along the French border, etc. It would also eliminate inconsistances such as when a democratic Prussia asserts a monarachial candidate on Spain.
Should be noted that it should be relatively easy to make something *either* a decision or an event. (Let's say German Unification, you can have a decision, basically the equivalent of Conservative Empire or Popular unification, that sleeps the historical chain)
Heck, correct me if I'm wrong, but you can even have a decision that triggers a chain of events, no?
Heck, correct me if I'm wrong, but you can even have a decision that triggers a chain of events, no?
Please god no hard-scripted nonsense.
That, to me, has always been the One Major Flaw with Vicky: If you work hard to overcome your starting position and SUCCEED, you are still punished as if your country is on the train tracks to hell.
Take the Ottoman Empire, turn it into a modern, multicultural liberal democracy with +200 relations with Russia for 50 years. You'll still get the "Ottoman repression of the Slavs" event and war with Russia. A war that makes NO FRIGGIN SENSE.
Have a Mexico that could buy all of the Caribbean from the Europeans? Fiscal policy been sound? Doesn't matter, bankruptcy looms by HARD SCRIPTED EVENT.
If this nonsense is in V2, that's the One Thing that could make me not want to buy it. I'll be watching the dev diaries closely for it.
That, to me, has always been the One Major Flaw with Vicky: If you work hard to overcome your starting position and SUCCEED, you are still punished as if your country is on the train tracks to hell.
Take the Ottoman Empire, turn it into a modern, multicultural liberal democracy with +200 relations with Russia for 50 years. You'll still get the "Ottoman repression of the Slavs" event and war with Russia. A war that makes NO FRIGGIN SENSE.
Have a Mexico that could buy all of the Caribbean from the Europeans? Fiscal policy been sound? Doesn't matter, bankruptcy looms by HARD SCRIPTED EVENT.
If this nonsense is in V2, that's the One Thing that could make me not want to buy it. I'll be watching the dev diaries closely for it.
While I agree with you, I think these events should definitely be in if certain conditions for them are met. That way less gamey players who want to face a country's historical challenges can still do it. And a lot of the fun of these games is not coming into them with historical foresight about your nation and being surprised by the challenges you are faced with.
What would ruin the game for me is random generic events. I absolutely hate these. They don't serve any real purpose except to add another dice roll. Oh, yay, one extra base tax. Oh noes, a random loss of stability. I mean, what's the point at all? They add no flavor to the game and are just a random inconvenience. Its a lazy way to "make things happen" without actually going through any of the effort of historical research.
I think the main concern of the vast majority of gamers is not so much historical fidelity as it is historical plausibility. This has been a big challenge for PI with EU3 and HoI3. The decision system is a wonderful idea, and for EU3 IN it does a pretty good job.
The trick is to infinitely generate somewhat random scripted events that are dynamic and contextual enough to seem like history. It will require elaborate, complex programming and story writing. The key is creating a unique atmosphere and feel for every country and game session.
Last edited: