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.
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.
Nor has anyone said that the problems you're talking about are anything but bugs, and in the first place they are not caused by the lack of historical events like those we had in EU2, HOI, HOI2, and Victoria.
But that's not what those events did. In my opinion there are two big problems with the old system, and that's caused me to stop playing the older games (except Crusader Kings and the Armageddon and Abyss campaigns in HOI2) now that I have alternatives.
1. When I play the game, I want to just play the game. I don't want to have to memorize all the events and their triggers and effects in order to be able to play. I don't want my elaborate strategy suddenly being shattered by some unforseen event, or have an event that really, logically should have have fired, the way things are progressing in the game, not trigger because I haven't met all the requirements for it to trigger to the letter.
It should be enough for me to have a strategy that makes sense realistically and historically and follow it, without having to know exactly how Paradox (or the modders in question if it's a mod) choose to write the events and what they've included as events and what they have not.
2. No matter how well written the events are, and no matter how clever the triggers are set up, in many games many of them will eventually stop making sense over time compared to how they worked historically. If you force yourself to follow the historical path (and the AI does as well), then things will work reasonably fine. But when you don't, the events just don't work anymore. Often an event (even when very well written and with a very complicated trigger) will fire even when the circumstances that existed historically that lets it make sense don't exist in the game anymore.
And in any case, I think if the game is really truly realistic and is meant to be a "world simulator" so to speak, then it should not closely follow history every time (regardless of what the player does/doesn't do) because in real life the reason history actually turned out the way it did, rather than the many ways it could have turned out, is simply coincidence. There are just too many major historical events that have very minor, mundane, and random causes, and even the smallest changes build up over time to where things end up dramatically different.
Yes, if you start in 1936, then the Japanese should be able to beat up the Chinese when they attack them in 37 (at least intially, before getting bogged down). But if you start simulating history in 1836, things 100 years later can turn out in very different ways.
We're talking about the history of humans here. We're very unpredictable creatures. A rigid event system like the one we had in the older games just can't simulate that.
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*.
Paradox should publish position papers on their philosophies and intent in developing/modeling these games.
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.
Paradox should publish position papers on their philosophies and intent in developing/modeling these games.
Moi aussi!I would prefer no historical events at all.
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.
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.
Please god no hard-scripted nonsense.
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.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.