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

[Vlad123]

I disagree that it would be a mistake. Even Tinto themselves seem to think that opening up previously Tag locked mechanics is a good idea. During the EU4 government reform rework, they opened up thing like Sortition, Merchant Republics, Parliament, Monarchists vs Statists, etc. And to my mind all of that was a net good for the game. It improved replayability and enjoyment by letting other Tags get access to things that used to be locked. I just want to go a step farther and open up more of those unique things. The fact that Zulu also has access to "Prussia's" Mechanics already indicates that there's nothing inherently Prussian about them.

As we are using the EU4 Prussian Government mechanics as our example here, I'll continue to do so. I'd generalize it (in EU4 terms) to make the requirements be something like "Have Quality Ideas and one of Offensive/Defensive", by taking those ideas you have already taken steps to go "all in" on the military, and then the government reform would be a continuation and formal entrenchment of that path. After all, a small nation like Tibet or Nepal trapped between China and India, might in start to fear for their safety and go down a highly militarized path. Would it look exactly like Prussia's path IRL? Probably not, but the mechanics in the game are already an abstraction available to "Not Prussia" so for me there is only benefit to opening them up even more just like they've already done with other previously tag locked mechanics.

With all of that said, who even knows what sort of thing might represent Prussian militarism in PC, or honestly even if anything will. But for me, the fun of Paradox games is the "what if" where some random nation can make it big against the odds or develop in a way that's totally different to reality. Colonial Mamluks colonizing Australia, or the occasional Mega-Albania comes to mind. The problems with CK3 (or Victoria 3) are not that all the mechanics are available everywhere. That's a misdiagnosis, repeated because people have EU4/HOI4 mission tree brain "Those games are good/fun and they have mission trees/unique mechanics, therefore mission trees/unique mechanics make a game good". CK3 has problems because it's so easy to become overpowered by accident, even when you are actively trying to avoid it. Victoria 3's issue is that the existing mechanics don't even work correctly, and even when they do the game itself is just kind of dull, you spend too much time waiting for things to happen. CK2 didn't have tag specific mechanics, a count in France played exactly the same as a count in Italy after all, and most folks here would probably say that game was quite good and very replayable. For me, EU4 isn't good because of the tag specific mechanics, it's good in spite of them. It would be better if Prussian militarism was more widely available, or if more nations could become a "holy horde", or if more than just Egypt had access to the "Egyptian Westernization" mechanic, or if more than just the Mughals had Diwan. Good mechanics and fun gameplay make a game good, not "Tag Magic". And good mechanics are mechanics that you can actually use so the more accessible the better.

the problem are the Zulu have the base militarism, but only prussians can improve their militarism via mission three and this is wrong!

 

[A Pink Duck]

the problem are the Zulu have the base militarism, but only prussians can improve their militarism via mission three and this is wrong!

Oh, I agree. All militarism mechanics should be available to every nation.

 

[eddin2]

You specifically said:

My argument is that these are not Prussia's mechanics, they are generic militarization mechanics. Nothing about them suggests any specific affinity to Prussia. If they were, then I would not be making this argument - as I said already. These kinds of generic mechanics may easily be repurposed for other nations, and they should be. I have no problem with another mechanic being created for when a tag, with most of its pops in Prussia/the Brandenburg area, with that Prussian flair I referred to at the very beginning (actually, I would have a problem with it, but I understand that we cannot have the perfect simulation).

You know, all my exes have said this. Perhaps it's true?

In logic, a tautology is an argument that is true by virtue of its framing.

Yes, and my issue with this is, and always has been, the fact that Prussia undertook a historical path to get militarized. They did not get militarized by pressing a button (you need only form Prussia to get the mechanics). I hope for this path itself to be simulated - simulate the reasons, not force-feeding the outcomes.

They already have made other countries able to militarize in EUIV. But as always all this requires is changing a government reform. You do not need to put any effort or resources into doing so - you only ever need to spend time. But again, why is Prussia militarized? Was it militarized because its name was Prussia, or because reforms and efforts were put into that direction? Why not simulate the latter instead? The Prussian path could merely be more specific, or have more flavor. Why deny this to other nations who could have plausibly managed to do so in the timeframe? "History" is, I am sorry, not a very good argument at all. Because such logic falls into the trap of assuming history is in outcomes; it is not, it is in the process. Why is the process being disregarded? Is this giving anybody the "full picture," so to speak, of what is actually going on? We have these debates, here, about why Prussia was militarized. Why can this not be in the game instead?

This may be a historical game, but whether it is a historical record or a historical simulation will I suppose always be up for debate. I fall into the latter camp; hence my position.


ALSO: just an addendum. Prussia was never a "militarized society" in the game's timeframe. From Iron Kingdom by Christopher Clark:

Regardless, Clark's opinion is that Prussia's militarization was almost entirely due to the Thirty Years' War. If we accept his thesis - should Prussia be militarized if the Thirty Years' War does not occur, is not as devastating, or does not much affect its people? In EUIV, Prussia will be militarized before the war is even an idea in people's heads.

At least now we have a nicer conversation.

 

[emperorgamer11]

I disagree that it would be a mistake. Even Tinto themselves seem to think that opening up previously Tag locked mechanics is a good idea. During the EU4 government reform rework, they opened up thing like Sortition, Merchant Republics, Parliament, Monarchists vs Statists, etc. And to my mind all of that was a net good for the game. It improved replayability and enjoyment by letting other Tags get access to things that used to be locked. I just want to go a step farther and open up more of those unique things. The fact that Zulu also has access to "Prussia's" Mechanics already indicates that there's nothing inherently Prussian about them.

As we are using the EU4 Prussian Government mechanics as our example here, I'll continue to do so. I'd generalize it (in EU4 terms) to make the requirements be something like "Have Quality Ideas and one of Offensive/Defensive", by taking those ideas you have already taken steps to go "all in" on the military, and then the government reform would be a continuation and formal entrenchment of that path. After all, a small nation like Tibet or Nepal trapped between China and India, might in start to fear for their safety and go down a highly militarized path. Would it look exactly like Prussia's path IRL? Probably not, but the mechanics in the game are already an abstraction available to "Not Prussia" so for me there is only benefit to opening them up even more just like they've already done with other previously tag locked mechanics.

With all of that said, who even knows what sort of thing might represent Prussian militarism in PC, or honestly even if anything will. But for me, the fun of Paradox games is the "what if" where some random nation can make it big against the odds or develop in a way that's totally different to reality. Colonial Mamluks colonizing Australia, or the occasional Mega-Albania comes to mind. The problems with CK3 (or Victoria 3) are not that all the mechanics are available everywhere. That's a misdiagnosis, repeated because people have EU4/HOI4 mission tree brain "Those games are good/fun and they have mission trees/unique mechanics, therefore mission trees/unique mechanics make a game good". CK3 has problems because it's so easy to become overpowered by accident, even when you are actively trying to avoid it. Victoria 3's issue is that the existing mechanics don't even work correctly, and even when they do the game itself is just kind of dull, you spend too much time waiting for things to happen. CK2 didn't have tag specific mechanics, a count in France played exactly the same as a count in Italy after all, and most folks here would probably say that game was quite good and very replayable. For me, EU4 isn't good because of the tag specific mechanics, it's good in spite of them. It would be better if Prussian militarism was more widely available, or if more nations could become a "holy horde", or if more than just Egypt had access to the "Egyptian Westernization" mechanic, or if more than just the Mughals had Diwan. Good mechanics and fun gameplay make a game good, not "Tag Magic". And good mechanics are mechanics that you can actually use so the more accessible the better.

Well, as the OP, I'll say I think we finally reached a sort of agreement - because by "flavor" I am referring specifically to CK2-type content. It's not tag-specific stuff that is asked for per se; what is deathly needed is religions actually playing differently, "areas" actually playing differently (because again - playing CK2 in tribal Scandinavia is completely different to feudal India), and government forms needing actual gameplay to change (in CK2 you generally always stay a monarchy, but to change the way the monarchy works, you engage in realistic struggles with your vassals, rather than the insane Victoria 3 law system).

 

[A Pink Duck]

Well, as the OP, I'll say I think we finally reached a sort of agreement - because by "flavor" I am referring specifically to CK2-type content. It's not tag-specific stuff that is asked for per se; what is deathly needed is religions actually playing differently, "areas" actually playing differently (because again - playing CK2 in tribal Scandinavia is completely different to feudal India), and government forms needing actual gameplay to change (in CK2 you generally always stay a monarchy, but to change the way the monarchy works, you engage in realistic struggles with your vassals, rather than the insane Victoria 3 law system).

Right, playing in the HRE in EU4 is way different than doing the Sengoku Jidai over in Japan, which is way different than playing as a Tribal federation in the New World or a horde in the Steppe. I'm 100% behind things like that because they aren't tied to a tag. Regional/Religious/Cultural uniqueness, not "Tag Magic". It shouldn't be "France gets to do this cool thing just because they are France". I was just playing Orleans in EU4 the other day, and you are basically forced to form France (your ultimate mission is even to do so) because otherwise you are locked out of all the things that France's mission tree gives you. That's the kind of thing I hope that PC avoids.

Also, while I do think that mechanics should be widely available, there are certainly limits on plausibility. I doubt that the German people will tear down their cities and castles so that they can become Nomadic pastoralists

Yeah, Victoria 3's system for passing laws is, not great... I don't know how they decided that the solution for "Passing laws is too random and is also kind of boring" was to say "How about we keep the randomness and add even more phases?" It boggles the mind. They missed the obvious solution of "CK2's council bribes system, but better", using the Interest Groups. My guess is that it ended up being technically infeasible. Since what was actually delivered was basically the original system with the serial numbers filed off, I'd bet that was all they had time for with the numerous other more critical issues that required dev time. I hope that Project Caesar has a more sensible system, whatever it ends up being. Or perhaps they won't even bother with a detailed law system. It may not be necessary for the kind of game they want to create. There does come a point where "more mechanics" starts detracting from a game rather than enhancing it. Like the shoehorned crafting systems that they like putting in basically every ARPG. No, I don't want to collect 300 cloth, 50 leather, and 10 strings so that I can craft new pants, just sell it to me in a shop or let me find it as loot.

 

[Kaspar Osraige]

Right, playing in the HRE in EU4 is way different than doing the Sengoku Jidai over in Japan, which is way different than playing as a Tribal federation in the New World or a horde in the Steppe. I'm 100% behind things like that because they aren't tied to a tag. Regional/Religious/Cultural uniqueness, not "Tag Magic". It shouldn't be "France gets to do this cool thing just because they are France". I was just playing Orleans in EU4 the other day, and you are basically forced to form France (your ultimate mission is even to do so) because otherwise you are locked out of all the things that France's mission tree gives you. That's the kind of thing I hope that PC avoids.

While I mostly agree with your point, Orleans getting control of France would certainly turn into France.

 

[WeissRaben]

Because this is not a game about Prussia. It is a game about the whole world and common mechanics have to fit all the other tags. So Tinto is making this common structure and now - SOME interesting historical events CAN be recreated within the system. And SOME interesting historical events CANNOT.

What You (presumably) want, is to remove from the game all the interesting historical events that cannot be recreated within the game system.

In my opinion, it would be a grave mistake. I'd rather have "Prussian Government" as a specialized government reform only available to Prussia (and customs countries that I play a lot) than have an empty shell of a game like CK3 with "all mechanics available to every tag".

If you do not want to play Prussian government - just play any other tag. If you do not read Wiki you may not even know that "Prussian Government" exists.

What if I think that a ducky of Milan that has been walked over by a thousand different countries during the Thirty-Years War (something that absolutely did happen OTL - it just wasn't an independent country at the time) should also be able to take that path? After all the conditions are there - place with a long military tradition that has been used as a rag and completely devastated in a war that had little to do with them, deciding that they are just going to bite off the hand of whoever tries to get close.

Good miltiary tradition (or equivalent), high devastation (or equivalent), high war exhaustion (or equivalent), in a war where they aren't the main combatant, with a solid leader at the head. Lo, that's Brandenburg-Prussia! Except that no, it's Milan.

 

[Kovax]

There should be "unique" mechanics for different religions, for different geographical regions and types, and for different political systems. On top of that, there should be starting differences in various fields of knowledge and diplomacy, as well as advantages and disadvantages to differing environments, so Catholic and Moslem countries don't play the same, countries situated in fertile plains or islands don't play the same as those in rugged mountains, and merchant republics, kingdoms, and tribal federations don't pass legislation in the same manner, or at least have greater difficulty and more pushback for certain choices.

THEN the game can add a few tweaks and events for specific conditions which only one or two countries are LIKELY to meet, but others may be able to meet if they take drastic (and painful) measures to do so. There should be very few mechanics that are restricted to a single country. Most of the events should trigger according to a set of conditions (not all visible) which were present historically. Unfortunately, that does put a bit more burden on the developers to put appropriate checks on the events and options so they happen when they make sense, and don't happen when they would be unrealistic.

Drastic changes of religion should be difficult and slow, not a matter of gathering enough mana or political power to magically transform the country or province overnight. Political change should either come very slowly (somewhat faster when under extreme pressure) or as a result of a successful revolt which shatters the existing political structure and requires rebuilding the government from the ground up. You don't transform your current government overnight voluntarily, and the new form should play quite a bit differently than the old one (unless it's only a change from one autocrat to another, not a new FORM of government).

 

[Vlad123]

There should be "unique" mechanics for different religions, for different geographical regions and types, and for different political systems. On top of that, there should be starting differences in various fields of knowledge and diplomacy, as well as advantages and disadvantages to differing environments, so Catholic and Moslem countries don't play the same, countries situated in fertile plains or islands don't play the same as those in rugged mountains, and merchant republics, kingdoms, and tribal federations don't pass legislation in the same manner, or at least have greater difficulty and more pushback for certain choices.

THEN the game can add a few tweaks and events for specific conditions which only one or two countries are LIKELY to meet, but others may be able to meet if they take drastic (and painful) measures to do so. There should be very few mechanics that are restricted to a single country. Most of the events should trigger according to a set of conditions (not all visible) which were present historically. Unfortunately, that does put a bit more burden on the developers to put appropriate checks on the events and options so they happen when they make sense, and don't happen when they would be unrealistic.

Drastic changes of religion should be difficult and slow, not a matter of gathering enough mana or political power to magically transform the country or province overnight. Political change should either come very slowly (somewhat faster when under extreme pressure) or as a result of a successful revolt which shatters the existing political structure and requires rebuilding the government from the ground up. You don't transform your current government overnight voluntarily, and the new form should play quite a bit differently than the old one (unless it's only a change from one autocrat to another, not a new FORM of government).

Another thing: please avoid the dumb thing: make a disaster happen vountary and devaste your country only for a juicy bonus else impossible to pick, is game breaking and rp breaking can a country ruled well, do voluntary make a "invisible clock" trigger only for won the disaster and have the bonus

 

[Arizal]

The thing is, even if we are thinking about polders, I don't mind with cultures being able to gain them "dynamically", as long as it's based on certain CONDITIONS, rather than a CK3-style "if you have enough prestige, you can just introduce polders into your culture".

I don't mind this at all. I think there are great examples of condition-based dynamic flavor in PDX games already - e.g., in CK2, Tamerlane will show up as whatever religion his region is at the time, or certain events need certain conditions to be triggered ("Crown from the Gutter" in Vic2, or even the revolution mechanics in EU4).
Dynamic content isn't a problem if it's tied to historical processes (i.e.: gameplay) rather than fulfilling arbitrary quantities of prestige (like CK2) or luck (winning a bunch of EU4-siege laws in Vic 3)

I completely agree. CK3 has a nice idea, with customizable religions and cultures, but I believe the prestige/piety cost should be decreased and concrete conditions should be put in place get many of those identity shifts.