The type of railroading I am hoping for

[Fresan]

The worst part of paradox games for me is mission/focus trees. I feel like they are too artificial and makes the world feel less believable.
Some games like hoi4 needs it of course. Without it the war would not go the same way it did in real life and immersion would be broken. On the other hand games like Ck3/2 have no mission trees. And because of that the world is completely unrecognizable at the end
That is why I hope Project Caesar learns from the Historic Invasion mod for Ck3. I cant play that game without that mod anymore. What it does is basically just spawning historic characters at the correct dates to get a world that is more like what happened in real life. This way we can have the Great northern war, American war for independence and the Napoleonic wars without mission trees and everything that comes with it.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

to get a world that is more like what happened in real life.

Why is this desirable?

 

[Fresan]

Why is this desirable?

Because when a game covers such a large time period as this I am sure many including me wants a game that resembles real life so that we can play stuff like the American revolution. Especially when we only get one start date that is in the middle ages. History is what made me interested in paradox games after all. And like the mod I wouldn't expect this to create a 1:1 copy of the world. Just something that is recognizable

 

[MaXiMuS-54]

So mission trees which guide decisions is artificial but spawning in a massive army isn't artificial?

 

[MatthewP]

The worst part of paradox games for me is mission/focus trees. I feel like they are too artificial and makes the world feel less believable.
Some games like hoi4 needs it of course. Without it the war would not go the same way it did in real life and immersion would be broken. On the other hand games like Ck3/2 have no mission trees. And because of that the world is completely unrecognizable at the end
That is why I hope Project Caesar learns from the Historic Invasion mod for Ck3. I cant play that game without that mod anymore. What it does is basically just spawning historic characters at the correct dates to get a world that is more like what happened in real life. This way we can have the Great northern war, American war for independence and the Napoleonic wars without mission trees and everything that comes with it.

I may try this mod. But honestly the appeal is not so much to get historical characters as to shake things up and provide some challenges (via the invasions themselves if targeted and presumably strong AI realms they create). I do hope EU5 can do something that accomplishes this, so the player is surprised by new challenges periodically; I think challenges coming from surprising directions is a really good thing in a GSG. I doubt the approach will be exactly the same though.

 

[William the Merry]

So mission trees which guide decisions is artificial but spawning in a massive army isn't artificial?

You need the massive armies to unseat the established ruler, think of how armies in paradox are often the full force at once

 

[TitaniumMan91]

You need the massive armies to unseat the established ruler, think of how armies in paradox are often the full force at once

I believe their point is that magically spawning a character who may or may not even be relevant as the world situation changed with a giant army is a very linear railroad, arguably much more so than mission trees that guide the player/AI to historical outcomes.

 

[Sapa Inca]

I hope for optional game rules where you can make your game more historical.

What I hope for historical optional game rules:

- AIs always choose the historical option in events.

- AIs desire provinces that they historically desired in real life (one of main reasons why Persia, Netherlands and Mughals rarely form in EU4 is because tags in the region have a tendency to make alliances with tags that hold provinces that are necessary to make the formation, with this game rule AIs would actively desire provinces that are necessary to make formable nations happen, what is the exact thing that players already do).

- Historical and sucesseful rebelions would be buffed through a game rule.

- Some event chains almost always happen if historical game rules are active, but the year when these event chains happen can vary.

 

[Sapa Inca]

In these foruns is bit tiresome to ask devs for optional game rules for a more historical gameplay because certain people that hate historical game rules even when it is optional make strawman arguments.

A strawman where fans of historical game rules are criticized as people that want to watch a video instead of play a game or as people that want all events of the game to happen in the exact same month and same yeat without any explanation.

Sandbox games and railroaded games are not a binary switch, they are a spectrum, different persons consider the perfect point to exist in different points of the spectrum, optional game rules are good for Paradox game by this exact reason.

What the vast majority of people that like historical gameplay want are just optional game rules to nudge the game in a more recognizable world, for example I saw countless time Mughals never forming in EU4 because a strong Afeghanistan was allied with a Delhi rump state that held the last two provinces to form Mughals.

What I want as an optional game rule are things like: Make an AI that can form the Mughals and is strong enough to do it actively desire the required provinces.

 

[Blindbohemian]

In these foruns is bit tiresome to ask devs for optional game rules for a more historical gameplay because certain people that hate historical game rules even when it is optional make strawman arguments.

A strawman where fans of historical game rules are criticized as people that want to watch a video instead of play a game or as people that want all events of the game to happen in the exact same month and same yeat without any explanation.

Sandbox games and railroaded games are not a binary switch, they are a spectrum, different persons consider the perfect point to exist in different points of the spectrum, optional game rules are good for Paradox game by this exact reason.

What the vast majority of people that like historical gameplay want are just optional game rules to nudge the game in a more recognizable world, for example I saw countless time Mughals never forming in EU4 because a strong Afeghanistan was allied with a Delhi rump state that held the last two provinces to form Mughals.

What I want as an optional game rule are things like: Make an AI that can form the Mughals and is strong enough to do it actively desire the required provinces.

Hmm. I have been a strong advocate of more historical outcomes in Paradox games since EU3, but I would still criticise anyone asking for "historical gameplay" game rules, not because you should watch a video but because the idea is kind of stupid.

Things that happened historically happened historically because they made sense historically. The people in question in Afghanistan or the nascent Netherlands or wherever were in a situation where the things that they did historically seemed to them like the right things to do. A game rule that just forced Afghanistan to hate Delhi because Game Rules Say Mughals would ignore that and produce a less historical game. You'd be crippling the production of the thing that you purport to want.

Or you'd be asking for such an insanely complex and detailed set of optional game rules as to make it one of the biggest and most complex features of the entire game, crippling the entirety of EU5 in service of this very narrow and specific goal that doesn't deliver any benefit to anyone else.

All in all I sympathise with the desire for more historical outcomes but this isn't the way to get there. It's just a bad idea.

 

[Sapa Inca]

Things that happened historically happened historically because they made sense historically. The people in question in Afghanistan or the nascent Netherlands or wherever were in a situation where the things that they did historically seemed to them like the right things to do.

It is a bit inconsistent with modifiers that already exist in EU4, for example, is impossible to Inca Empire or Aztecs to try an alliance with Spain during early game because they almost always have a diplomatical modifier named "desire our provinces". It is already a precedent, I dont see problems with Afghanistam having this type of modifier against Delhi if a set of circunstances are already in place.

For example, you could have an event chain that starts if Ferghana is not under control of a Timurid prince, it would spawn a coup in Afghanistan where Babur would try to take the throne in Kabul, you would have the option to choose if you want to support Babur or the old dynasty. If you support Babur and win, you gain a tier 1 ruler and a tier 1 general and if Babur is AI the country governed by him gains a modifier named "desire these provinces" that are the provinces necessary to form Mughals.

I dont understand this type of event chain as a bad thing, I understand it as good historical flavour for the game.

 

[MatthewP]

Hmm. I have been a strong advocate of more historical outcomes in Paradox games since EU3, but I would still criticise anyone asking for "historical gameplay" game rules, not because you should watch a video but because the idea is kind of stupid.

Things that happened historically happened historically because they made sense historically. The people in question in Afghanistan or the nascent Netherlands or wherever were in a situation where the things that they did historically seemed to them like the right things to do. A game rule that just forced Afghanistan to hate Delhi because Game Rules Say Mughals would ignore that and produce a less historical game. You'd be crippling the production of the thing that you purport to want.

Or you'd be asking for such an insanely complex and detailed set of optional game rules as to make it one of the biggest and most complex features of the entire game, crippling the entirety of EU5 in service of this very narrow and specific goal that doesn't deliver any benefit to anyone else.

All in all I sympathise with the desire for more historical outcomes but this isn't the way to get there. It's just a bad idea.

I don't know about this. Even assuming you get a really incredibly (unrealistically) faithful simulation, the butterfly effect will pretty quickly lead to a world that barely resembles ours in its details and differs significantly even in broad strokes. If you want to start the game in the 1330s and still have e.g. the Ottomans conquering Constantinople 100+ years later, you're not going to get that regularly unless you railroad it. There are just too many other ways things could have gone in that century and change of chaotic history. You're not going to get the Mughals or Muscovy forming Russia or any number of major world events just by creating a good simulation. There are too many things that could have plausibly gone very differently.

For me this is fine. The world can look really different after 200 years so long as it's interesting, plausible and dynamic. This is even a bonus because it makes the game replayable. But I do think there's a real tension between historical outcomes and a historical (non-railroaded) simulation.

 

[William the Merry]

Hmm. I have been a strong advocate of more historical outcomes in Paradox games since EU3, but I would still criticise anyone asking for "historical gameplay" game rules, not because you should watch a video but because the idea is kind of stupid.

Things that happened historically happened historically because they made sense historically. The people in question in Afghanistan or the nascent Netherlands or wherever were in a situation where the things that they did historically seemed to them like the right things to do. A game rule that just forced Afghanistan to hate Delhi because Game Rules Say Mughals would ignore that and produce a less historical game. You'd be crippling the production of the thing that you purport to want.

Or you'd be asking for such an insanely complex and detailed set of optional game rules as to make it one of the biggest and most complex features of the entire game, crippling the entirety of EU5 in service of this very narrow and specific goal that doesn't deliver any benefit to anyone else.

All in all I sympathise with the desire for more historical outcomes but this isn't the way to get there. It's just a bad idea.

Whats complicated about having a "if historical rules on pick this option" we already have ai weightings for personalities and strength formulas. Having Afghanistan hostile to dehli is just something that should be in if we get a way to raid in eu5 as we do in ck

 

[Sapa Inca]

Things that happened historically happened historically because they made sense historically.

I agree with you that in general simulation of historical process through game mechanic is better than nudges prioritizing historical outcomes.

But we must recognize that the game have a scope and certain things are extremely complex to represent through mechanics or are outside the scope of the game, for these things I think that we need to make a few concessions that enable it to be represented through event chains or modifiers.

For example, Babur in Kabul and the Mughals are dynamic historical process that are outside the scope of EU4, because EU4 dont have a general mechanic for characters and adventurers, the only way to EU4 represent something like it would be through event chains.

Between the two options Babur and the Mughals are represented in game through modifiers and event chains or they are not represented at all. My personal desire is the first option.

National ideas are another good example, you consider national ideas bad railroad?

There are a few people in this forum that want national ideas to be removed and swapped with a dynamic system for ideas, but everyone knows that a game complex enough to simulate all variables to all national ideas to all countries in the world in a way that enable diversity of national ideas picked and game balance is a hard task that in the end would end with a shallower and less diverse game when compared with a game where national ideas exist. Also, it would need a vast quantity of dev time and is probably impractical if they want something with the same diversity and flavor of national ideas.

 

[Pls fix HRE]

All I want is certain vital historical things to happen early game with only a 10 20% chance of not happening. Except with Byzantium Byzantium should be coded to fail by having your army turn into rebels the second you build one and a civil war happening at the same time while every war you are in you automatically lose and have to give up land. The player is also forced to be indebt all the time otherwise they get the "breaking the simulation" debuff wich gives them a -200% all income penalty.

 

[Blindbohemian]

It is a bit inconsistent with modifiers that already exist in EU4, for example, is impossible to Inca Empire or Aztecs to try an alliance with Spain during early game because they almost always have a diplomatical modifier named "desire our provinces". It is already a precedent, I dont see problems with Afghanistam having this type of modifier against Delhi if a set of circunstances are already in place.

But Inca and Aztecs aren't "railroaded" to get that "wants your provinces" modifier. Their provinces are just very desirable, and Spain is much more powerful than them. Spain dynamically gets the modifier, and it happens to replicate history. If Spain became landlocked because Portugal and Morocco kicked the crap out of it, it wouldn't get a "wants you provinces" modifier against the Aztecs.

For example, you could have an event chain that starts if Ferghana is not under control of a Timurid prince, it would spawn a coup in Afghanistan where Babur would try to take the throne in Kabul, you would have the option to choose if you want to support Babur or the old dynasty. If you support Babur and win, you gain a tier 1 ruler and a tier 1 general and if Babur is AI the country governed by him gains a modifier named "desire these provinces" that are the provinces necessary to form Mughals.

Yes. You could. But why should it?

What if Ferghana is not controlled by a Timurid prince but is controlled by someone friendly to Afghanistan? Why would they then take hostile control of Afghanistan? What if the Afghanistan taken by this AI-Babur is already superbly powerful and extensive within the Iranian plateau and well-positioned to form Persia? What benefit is then achieved by forcing it using But-History logic to turn around, abandon all the forces acting upon it, and try to form the Mughals? Who is to say that the only reason a powerful Central Asian-Islamic power emerged in north India is Babur anyway, and why shouldn't the Mughals be able to come about in other ways? Or why, given a game starting in 1337, should they come about at all?

I understand the problem you're trying to solve and I sympathise, I do, this just isn't a good way to do it.

Whats complicated about having a "if historical rules on pick this option" we already have ai weightings for personalities and strength formulas. Having Afghanistan hostile to dehli is just something that should be in if we get a way to raid in eu5 as we do in ck

What's complicated is that people inevitably don't want a single binary "historical rules on", because they want to do stuff that isn't immediately historical and they want the world to react to what they're doing, not just plod away at what historically happened. If we could have a "historical rules on until 1453" rule that produced a precisely accurate 1453 world every time I'd be very pleased, because I want to play EU5 starting in 1453. But that's not what I'd get, with a "historical yes/no". Instead I'd get an entire game that plays out along "historical" lines—up to 1453 and then until 1821. That isn't (I suspect) what Sapa Inca wants either, because if they wanted an EU game that literally plays itself through history they really could just watch a video. They want an EU where specific historical things go approximately historically, and others don't. Have fun making up game rules and working out all the interactions for that.

 

[Sapa Inca]

What if Ferghana is not controlled by a Timurid prince but is controlled by someone friendly to Afghanistan?

Historically Babur fled Ferghana after the city was conquered by his enemies and he fled to Kabul. The game will not have a general mechanic for adventurers, it is outside the scope. Or we have a event chain for Babur ascension or Babur ascension will not be represented at all.

 

[Sapa Inca]

. If we could have a "historical rules on until 1453" rule that produced a precisely accurate 1453 world every time I'd be very pleased, because I want to play EU5 starting in 1453. But that's not what I'd get, with a "historical yes/no". Instead I'd get an entire game that plays out along "historical" lines—up to 1453 and then until 1821.

If a historical ruleset exist a game rule to make it be active only until X year would not be impossible.

I have and impression that certain gamerules will be passible of adjustment by the player in the middle of a playthrough with no problems.

 

[MatthewP]

But Inca and Aztecs aren't "railroaded" to get that "wants your provinces" modifier. Their provinces are just very desirable, and Spain is much more powerful than them. Spain dynamically gets the modifier, and it happens to replicate history. If Spain became landlocked because Portugal and Morocco kicked the crap out of it, it wouldn't get a "wants you provinces" modifier against the Aztecs.

Actually Spain has missions which give it lots of claims on Mexico. There are of course less scripted reasons it could get the "wants your provinces" modifier, but this is why it seems like Spain always has it. If you take missions away (and e.g. special tag powers and tag-specific idea group scripting) you'll see a less historical new world most of the time.

 

[William the Merry]

But Inca and Aztecs aren't "railroaded" to get that "wants your provinces" modifier. Their provinces are just very desirable, and Spain is much more powerful than them. Spain dynamically gets the modifier, and it happens to replicate history. If Spain became landlocked because Portugal and Morocco kicked the crap out of it, it wouldn't get a "wants you provinces" modifier against the Aztecs.

Yes. You could. But why should it?

What if Ferghana is not controlled by a Timurid prince but is controlled by someone friendly to Afghanistan? Why would they then take hostile control of Afghanistan? What if the Afghanistan taken by this AI-Babur is already superbly powerful and extensive within the Iranian plateau and well-positioned to form Persia? What benefit is then achieved by forcing it using But-History logic to turn around, abandon all the forces acting upon it, and try to form the Mughals? Who is to say that the only reason a powerful Central Asian-Islamic power emerged in north India is Babur anyway, and why shouldn't the Mughals be able to come about in other ways? Or why, given a game starting in 1337, should they come about at all?

I understand the problem you're trying to solve and I sympathise, I do, this just isn't a good way to do it.

What's complicated is that people inevitably don't want a single binary "historical rules on", because they want to do stuff that isn't immediately historical and they want the world to react to what they're doing, not just plod away at what historically happened. If we could have a "historical rules on until 1453" rule that produced a precisely accurate 1453 world every time I'd be very pleased, because I want to play EU5 starting in 1453. But that's not what I'd get, with a "historical yes/no". Instead I'd get an entire game that plays out along "historical" lines—up to 1453 and then until 1821. That isn't (I suspect) what Sapa Inca wants either, because if they wanted an EU game that literally plays itself through history they really could just watch a video. They want an EU where specific historical things go approximately historically, and others don't. Have fun making up game rules and working out all the interactions for that.

Historical mughals was close to forming persia, with taking samarkand, but then they lost to the uzbeks. The descendants of timur making their home in India wasn't obvious from even 1444, but with how much the mughals change indian history, you want them to be a great force when playing in india or as a european