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

[Arizal]

The way I see militarism working as a generic game mechanics is two fold. It can work in any combination of those :

First, give it a drawback. Prussia was dirt poor during the period its armies were triumphant. It was kept alive by English subsidies. Maybe relying so much on your military should harm your economy in ways that are above having less economic bonuses.

Second, give it harsh prerequisites. From what I gather, Prussia became heavily militarized in reaction to the disaster that was the 30 years war for them. Others have also mentioned how the Junkers were a sort of military aristocracy. They were landed, so they would fit in the nobility, but others have assimilated them with the burghers because they weren't old owners.

Excluding the issue about the potential strenght of the nobility, I can see two other factors here : 1. having strong monarchs with a certain military skill, 2. having had a big part of your country thorougly devastated. In reaction, people would become hypervigilant.

This can happen with Brandenburg/Prussia, but also with Saxony, Brunswick, or any small country in the crossfire of a big war. It doesn't necessarily have to be the 30 years war. Imagine Poland miraculously surviving the partitions. Maybe they could "earn" that ethos, then.

 

[A Pink Duck]

The way I see militarism working as a generic game mechanics is two fold. It can work in any combination of those :

First, give it a drawback. Prussia was dirt poor during the period its armies were triumphant. It was kept alive by English subsidies. Maybe relying so much on your military should harm your economy in ways that are above having less economic bonuses.

Second, give it harsh prerequisites. From what I gather, Prussia became heavily militarized in reaction to the disaster that was the 30 years war for them. Others have also mentioned how the Junkers were a sort of military aristocracy. They were landed, so they would fit in the nobility, but others have assimilated them with the burghers because they weren't old owners.

Excluding the issue about the potential strenght of the nobility, I can see two other factors here : 1. having strong monarchs with a certain military skill, 2. having had a big part of your country thorougly devastated. In reaction, people would become hypervigilant.

This can happen with Brandenburg/Prussia, but also with Saxony, Brunswick, or any small country in the crossfire of a big war. It doesn't necessarily have to be the 30 years war. Imagine Poland miraculously surviving the partitions. Maybe they could "earn" that ethos, then.

Exactly. Since Prussians as an ethnic group are not somehow uniquely good at fighting, the situations that led Prussian society to value military excellence are likely applicable anywhere and may, if the player chooses, result in "an army with a state".

 

[pheonicia]

You could probably extend the logic to things like polders. Any culture finding itself pressed up against a marshy coast with no room to expand would likely have started reclaiming land from the sea. After all, if the Dutch has built a continental European empire attending from Paris to Berlin, they probably would have been less focused on reclaiming every inch of land from the north sea that they could.

 

[A Pink Duck]

You could probably extend the logic to things like polders. Any culture finding itself pressed up against a marshy coast with no room to expand would likely have started reclaiming land from the sea. After all, if the Dutch has built a continental European empire attending from Paris to Berlin, they probably would have been less focused on reclaiming every inch of land from the north sea that they could.

I'm not sure I'd take it away once gained, but other cultures could get access if certain conditions (x% provinces are marsh & coastal?) are met. Although depending on how cultures work, it may be not feasible for "not Dutch" cultures to gain access to them. Simply because there aren't that many applicable locations. Potentially some group native to places like Florida/Louisiana?

 

[Lindaegan]

We are talking from todays perspective about events and decisions from the past, including prussian militarism. I was just naming an event from recent past, for comparison.

No, we are not. We are talking about what could have happened in the past.

You basically just proved my point.

Did I? Your statement was, so it is clear to the both of us:

I didn't say we have perfect information, but there's enough to know, Prussia didn't become "Army with the state" randomly, and that it couldn't happened anywhere.

I pointed out events that would have stopped Brandenburg and Prussia falling under personal union in the first place. This, quite obviously, means that the "Prussia" we know of today never manages to punch above its weight and stand as an alternate pole of power in Germany to the Austrians. So no state means no army.

But of course that's not the point I was refuting. The above was just so you understand what I meant, since you seem unable to figure that out yourself. Prussia becoming an "army with a state" was due to events that occurred in-game time. Prussia did not become an "army with a state" because conquered a couple provinces, converted its religion and waited until 1530 to click a button and magically become militarized. It did so over time, through reforms and external circumstances. Turn the clock back around and it might not happen that way. It might have happened to someone else.

The most common explanation for Prussia's militarization is its geographical location. It sat between much greater powers on all sides, and many violent, large-scale wars broke out inside and around its borders. Of course such a situation (for the primary goal of all states is survival) would require it to create a large army, which would be accompanied by improvements in tactics and a bureaucracy to support that army. Do you really think this could not have happened anywhere else? Were the "Prussians" divinely ordained? Was the air in Prussia conducive to such militarizing? Of course not. If you genuinely think that it could have happened only in Prussia, and that it was fated to happen only in Prussia by the year thirteen-thirty-seven, then please by the gods above give me a reason.

Now, pray tell, which point of yours did I prove?

 

[Testerian2]

Prussia becoming an "army with a state" was due to events that occurred in-game time.

It does not really matter that much.

We can assume that Prussia became an "army with a state" because of the processes that are mapped by the mechanics of Project Caesar, and then we reflect that in those mechanics.

Or we can assume that Prussia became an "army with a state" for completely different reasons that cannot be mapped into the mechanics of Project Caesar, and then we use "tag magic". Because I'm pretty sure players do want some version of an "army with a state" in the game, at least for Prussia - even if the only way to do this is said "tag magic".

 

[A Pink Duck]

It does not really matter that much.

We can assume that Prussia became an "army with a state" because of the processes that are mapped by the mechanics of Project Caesar, and then we reflect that in those mechanics.

Or we can assume that Prussia became an "army with a state" for completely different reasons that cannot be mapped into the mechanics of Project Caesar, and then we use "tag magic". Because I'm pretty sure players do want some version of an "army with a state" in the game, at least for Prussia - even if the only way to do this is said "tag magic".

If the only way to get them is with tag magic, then that magic should be made available to any nation to reflect the fact that the conditions that caused them in Prussia could have arisen elsewhere. For historical reasons we could give it to Prussia by default, but I should be able to be a militarized Tibet if I wanted.

 

[eddin2]

No, we are not. We are talking about what could have happened in the past.

Did I? Your statement was, so it is clear to the both of us:

I pointed out events that would have stopped Brandenburg and Prussia falling under personal union in the first place. This, quite obviously, means that the "Prussia" we know of today never manages to punch above its weight and stand as an alternate pole of power in Germany to the Austrians. So no state means no army.

But of course that's not the point I was refuting. The above was just so you understand what I meant, since you seem unable to figure that out yourself. Prussia becoming an "army with a state" was due to events that occurred in-game time. Prussia did not become an "army with a state" because conquered a couple provinces, converted its religion and waited until 1530 to click a button and magically become militarized. It did so over time, through reforms and external circumstances. Turn the clock back around and it might not happen that way. It might have happened to someone else.

The most common explanation for Prussia's militarization is its geographical location. It sat between much greater powers on all sides, and many violent, large-scale wars broke out inside and around its borders. Of course such a situation (for the primary goal of all states is survival) would require it to create a large army, which would be accompanied by improvements in tactics and a bureaucracy to support that army. Do you really think this could not have happened anywhere else? Were the "Prussians" divinely ordained? Was the air in Prussia conducive to such militarizing? Of course not. If you genuinely think that it could have happened only in Prussia, and that it was fated to happen only in Prussia by the year thirteen-thirty-seven, then please by the gods above give me a reason.

Now, pray tell, which point of yours did I prove?

No, we are talking about what had happened in the past, and why exactly Prussia became Army with the state, instead of someone else.

And since we are past having a polite discussion, and I am kind of a jerk when that happens, I can be blunt and say that you are obviously too stupid and arrogant to understand what I tried to explain to you, so let me try once more:

Prussia became Army with the state exactly because of all the events that happened, some of them you mentioned. If that didn't happened, the outcome would have been different, how different, we don't know.
It's geographic location, religion, past, culture, all played significant role in shaping Prussian militaristic identity, which wouldn't be what it was, if some of those things were different.

Venice (since it was mentioned in the first comment I replied to) wasn't German speaking country, it wasn't located in the Baltic, it was a maritime republic not a monarchy which expanded from the town of Venice, and it didn't have strong historical connection with military monastic order.
North Italian cities quickly recovered after the fall of Western Roman Empire, with fertile Po valley and Mediterranean climate to secure extensive food supply, and Alps as a natural barrier from potential raids from the north. All that enabled the birth of early banking system, which further helped their economic development, that lead to establishment of rich and powerfull plutocracy, and intensive trade exchange between the cities.
I think there's no need to name further specifics.

All these differences between Prussia and Venice (even without countless personal relations, marriages, deaths etc among rulling classes for each of those two) couldn't resulted in the identical outcome, even if Venice somehow chose the path of militarized society aka Army with the state (and vice versa). All that could be applied to other historic realms, such as Byzantine empire and France in Europe, or Mughal empire and Tokugawa shogunate in Asia.

If you don't understand that, well, maybe you shouldn't be playing strategy games, try hack and slash genre, there's not much thinking.

 

[endersaim]

It would have been easy to have a few different flavors of tribal. For example, steppe tribes are substantively different from German/Scandinavian tribes in ways which are easily quantified and represented in game play. I don't know as much about other tribal areas perhaps, but, I find it hard to believe there isn't a substantive difference between a Mauretanian and a Tocharian.

The problem for Imperator was that potential players really don't know much about more than a handful of the entities rendered (Rome, Carthage, Macedonian successor states, Greece, perhaps some of India). So, unlike a war between France and Austria, which has something to attach to in people's minds, a war between Rome and Celt-Iberian states of "random" name isn't as compelling.

Imperator should have a spent a year more in development before release likely. Its a shame they dumped it at patch 2.0, because it finally was interesting and quite playable.

Another issue of Imperator and EU Rome before it is that it covers a run of time, but really only one relevant to the Roman Republic. So, you're passing up easy money by having an Alexander scenario along with easy money by having some Roman Empire scenarios as well. I used to play a table top board game Imperium Romanum II ages ago in college and people never wanted to do stuff like "the Social War". Rather, they wanted to play out stuff like "Constantine the Great against Maxentius" or "the year of the 4 emperors" or even a 406 AD scenario where people could play barbarian tribes as a reasonable option.

Perhaps the empire requires a separate game. But, I don't think so. And, just missing Alexander is a mistake imo.

I:R released with a deep lack of content as well as scale issues. For instance, its an incredibly basic idea that say the Cimbri culture group should be able to confederate without war, but in I:R one must conquer your coethnics and kill half of them in the process. Then your game is boring because you have almost no accepted pop, and I:R requires hundreds of accepted pops to be fun.

 

[Lindaegan]

Line-by-line time, just for you:

No, we are talking about what had happened in the past, and why exactly Prussia became Army with the state, instead of someone else.

Nope. We are talking about tag magic and vague mechanics. Prussia was an example. But hey, let's play your game.

And since we are past having a polite discussion, and I am kind of a jerk when that happens, I can be blunt and say that you are obviously too stupid and arrogant to understand what I tried to explain to you, so let me try once more:

Exciting. Wish you people would grow beyond the same two words, though. Be passive-aggressive. Like me.

Prussia became Army with the state exactly because of all the events that happened, some of them you mentioned. If that didn't happened, the outcome would have been different, how different, we don't know.

Tautology.

It's geographic location, religion, past, culture, all played significant role in shaping Prussian militaristic identity,

That's what I said.

which wouldn't be what it was, if some of those things were different.

(tautology)

Venice (since it was mentioned in the first comment I replied to) wasn't German speaking country, it wasn't located in the Baltic, it was a maritime republic not a monarchy which expanded from the town of Venice, and it didn't have strong historical connection with military monastic order.
North Italian cities quickly recovered after the fall of Western Roman Empire, with fertile Po valley and Mediterranean climate to secure extensive food supply, and Alps as a natural barrier from potential raids from the north. All that enabled the birth of early banking system, which further helped their economic development, that lead to establishment of rich and powerfull plutocracy, and intensive trade exchange between the cities.
I think there's no need to name further specifics.

Demonstrably true.
Thus far you have said nothing at all, other than obvious facts and nonsensical statements. The only point you have proved, and continue to prove, is your inability to read.

All these differences between Prussia and Venice (even without countless personal relations, marriages, deaths etc among rulling classes for each of those two) couldn't [have] resulted in the identical outcome, even if Venice somehow chose the path of militarized society aka Army with the state (and vice versa). All that could be applied to other historic realms, such as Byzantine empire and France in Europe, or Mughal empire and Tokugawa shogunate in Asia.

Wonderful. Finally, you have made an actual point - good for you! Let's consider this: obviously this is true. No one is refuting this very obvious point. Again, though you have managed to say something somewhat peripherally related to what I said, you are failing to understand my point. Did I ever suggest that anywhere that was militarized would have been militarized like Prussia? No, I did not, I never did. But what are these much-vaunted "militarization" "mechanics" in EUIV? A button you can exchange magic points to click, and get modifiers in return. Hilariously vague - please, for the love of the gods, tell me how this in any way relates specifically to what the Prussians did. Any country in the world could have done what this mechanic is (sophomorically) attempting to abstract.

Do you think Prussia was the only militarized country in the world? Do you think no other country had a much larger army than its population would suggest? Of course not. But you say, hey, listen, no one else did it like Prussia did. Okay, very obviously yes. Is this mechanic really that specific, then? Will the mechanic in this new game exactly encapsulate what it was that was so different about Prussia's militarization than anywhere else? I think you and I both know it will not, so just make them achievable by anyone who fulfills the conditions.

From the other side, let's say I form Prussia. I build a large fleet, and create a strong diplomatic apparatus to play off the major alliance blocs around me off of each other. War comes, but never in my borders. Why should I still get a "militarization" mechanic, in this case? What godsforsaken sense does this make? The game is ignoring what I am doing - it is doing what happened in one timeline. Not mine; in fact, the opposite of mine! Is this not unrealistic to you?

Again, if you want to disprove my point, only two arguments will really work (you may come up with other convincing ones, of course, but I doubt your capability to do so). One, show me that Prussia was fated to be militarized by April 1 1337. It was just going to happen, you know? It was just impossible to stop by that point. Or, two, show me that the militarization mechanics in EUIV (or any kind of militarization mechanic you can spitball for this game) pertains to, and only to, the historical Prussian state. The mechanic's just really specific, you know, and no one else could possibly emulate anything like it.

I would normally require you to show me both arguments, but for you I'll take even one. With sources, please.

 

[Vlad123]

Line-by-line time, just for you:

Nope. We are talking about tag magic and vague mechanics. Prussia was an example. But hey, let's play your game.

Exciting. Wish you people would grow beyond the same two words, though. Be passive-aggressive. Like me.

Tautology.

That's what I said.

View attachment 1124803
(tautology)

Demonstrably true.
Thus far you have said nothing at all, other than obvious facts and nonsensical statements. The only point you have proved, and continue to prove, is your inability to read.

Wonderful. Finally, you have made an actual point - good for you! Let's consider this: obviously this is true. No one is refuting this very obvious point. Again, though you have managed to say something somewhat peripherally related to what I said, you are failing to understand my point. Did I ever suggest that anywhere that was militarized would have been militarized like Prussia? No, I did not, I never did. But what are these much-vaunted "militarization" "mechanics" in EUIV? A button you can exchange magic points to click, and get modifiers in return. Hilariously vague - please, for the love of the gods, tell me how this in any way relates specifically to what the Prussians did. Any country in the world could have done what this mechanic is (sophomorically) attempting to abstract.

Do you think Prussia was the only militarized country in the world? Do you think no other country had a much larger army than its population would suggest? Of course not. But you say, hey, listen, no one else did it like Prussia did. Okay, very obviously yes. Is this mechanic really that specific, then? Will the mechanic in this new game exactly encapsulate what it was that was so different about Prussia's militarization than anywhere else? I think you and I both know it will not, so just make them achievable by anyone who fulfills the conditions.

From the other side, let's say I form Prussia. I build a large fleet, and create a strong diplomatic apparatus to play off the major alliance blocs around me off of each other. War comes, but never in my borders. Why should I still get a "militarization" mechanic, in this case? What godsforsaken sense does this make? The game is ignoring what I am doing - it is doing what happened in one timeline. Not mine; in fact, the opposite of mine! Is this not unrealistic to you?

Again, if you want to disprove my point, only two arguments will really work (you may come up with other convincing ones, of course, but I doubt your capability to do so). One, show me that Prussia was fated to be militarized by April 1 1337. It was just going to happen, you know? It was just impossible to stop by that point. Or, two, show me that the militarization mechanics in EUIV (or any kind of militarization mechanic you can spitball for this game) pertains to, and only to, the historical Prussian state. The mechanic's just really specific, you know, and no one else could possibly emulate anything like it.

I would normally require you to show me both arguments, but for you I'll take even one. With sources, please.

I mean becoming a merchant repubblic with a army? Can be a nice mix "I love money, and wit these money i pay the army can control the state" damn, i hope i not discovered the definitive exploit of PC

 

[eddin2]

Nope. We are talking about tag magic and vague mechanics. Prussia was an example. But hey, let's play your game.

We (at least me, from my first comment) are talking about all the reasons why there shouldn't be another Prussia in game.

Exciting. Wish you people would grow beyond the same two words, though. Be passive-aggressive. Like me

It really isn't, you are just annoying (hey, it seems I know another word) while trying to sound smart and funny.
I just don't have the need to insult people I have a disagreement with, until they start to behave like assholes, like you did.

Tautology

Thanks, I really tried to simplify and emphasise as much as I could, so you could understand what I was saying.

That's what I said

Hence the "you just proved my point" comment earlier.

(tautology)

Thanks, I really tried to simplify and emphasise as much as I could, so you could understand what I was saying.
(Not sure does this count too since I didn't change the words itself nor their sequence?)

Demonstrably true.
Thus far you have said nothing at all, other than obvious facts and nonsensical statements. The only point you have proved, and continue to prove, is your inability to read.

Otherwise unnecessary, but for you I made an exception. Now you know how I feel having this conversation with you.

Wonderful. Finally, you have made an actual point - good for you! Let's consider this: obviously this is true. No one is refuting this very obvious point. Again, though you have managed to say something somewhat peripherally related to what I said, you are failing to understand my point. Did I ever suggest that anywhere that was militarized would have been militarized like Prussia? No, I did not, I never did. But what are these much-vaunted "militarization" "mechanics" in EUIV? A button you can exchange magic points to click, and get modifiers in return. Hilariously vague - please, for the love of the gods, tell me how this in any way relates specifically to what the Prussians did. Any country in the world could have done what this mechanic is (sophomorically) attempting to abstract.

Do you think Prussia was the only militarized country in the world? Do you think no other country had a much larger army than its population would suggest? Of course not. But you say, hey, listen, no one else did it like Prussia did. Okay, very obviously yes. Is this mechanic really that specific, then? Will the mechanic in this new game exactly encapsulate what it was that was so different about Prussia's militarization than anywhere else? I think you and I both know it will not, so just make them achievable by anyone who fulfills the conditions.

From the other side, let's say I form Prussia. I build a large fleet, and create a strong diplomatic apparatus to play off the major alliance blocs around me off of each other. War comes, but never in my borders. Why should I still get a "militarization" mechanic, in this case? What godsforsaken sense does this make? The game is ignoring what I am doing - it is doing what happened in one timeline. Not mine; in fact, the opposite of mine! Is this not unrealistic to you?

That actual, historic differences was the sole focus of my initial comment you reply to. In other comment I wrote, I said the way it was implemented in game may be bad (I didn't play Prussia for a really long time in EU4 so I forgot do they need an event or mission for the militarisation to trigger or is it there from the 1444), but, nevertheless, it is game designers way of giving the Prussia their historic path. And it's a history game afterall.

Of course I don't think they were the only militarised country in the world (and again, did they or should they make other militarised societies more militarised in game, is open to debate), but, I don't think, for the very reason of all the specifics regarding Prussia we both confirmed, they should make Prussias militarism (or any other tag specific mechanics) available to every tag who decide to go militaristic way. I'll say again, it's a historic game, afterall.

I agree with your last paragraph, although I think we already established that, and that is the bad aspect of certain tag specific mechanics in EU4.

 

[Testerian2]

If the only way to get them is with tag magic, then that magic should be made available to any nation to reflect the fact that the conditions that caused them in Prussia could have arisen elsewhere. For historical reasons we could give it to Prussia by default, but I should be able to be a militarized Tibet if I wanted.

No.
EDIT: if it was available to everybody, it would not be "magic" just boring overpowered mechanics. The sole point is that it is available only to the one country that historically had it, combined with some other negative tag magic for interesting gameplay.

 

[Lindaegan]

We (at least me, from my first comment) are talking about all the reasons why there shouldn't be another Prussia in game.

You specifically said:

You can play as more militarilly orientated society, just not with Prussias mechanics.

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).

It really isn't, you are just annoying (hey, it seems I know another word) while trying to sound smart and funny.

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

(Not sure does this count too since I didn't change the words itself nor their sequence?)

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

That actual, historic differences was the sole focus of my initial comment you reply to. In other comment I wrote, I said the way it was implemented in game may be bad (I didn't play Prussia for a really long time in EU4 so I forgot do they need an event or mission for the militarisation to trigger or is it there from the 1444), but, nevertheless, it is game designers way of giving the Prussia their historic path. And it's a history game afterall.

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.

Of course I don't think they were the only militarised country in the world (and again, did they or should they make other militarised societies more militarised in game, is open to debate), but, I don't think, for the very reason of all the specifics regarding Prussia we both confirmed, they should make Prussias militarism (or any other tag specific mechanics) available to every tag who decide to go militaristic way. I'll say again, it's a historic game, afterall.

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:

[In 1786] The size of the [Prussian] army, expressed as a percentage of the total population, was thus 3.38 per cent, a figure that compares with the highly militarized states of the Soviet bloc during the Cold War (the figure for the German Democratic Republic in 1980, for example, was 3.9 per cent) ... Yet the percentage figure is somewhat misleading, since only 81,000 of these soldiers were native-born Prussians. Expressed as a percentage of total population this yields a figure of only 1.42 per cent, which is comparable with the western European states of the late twentieth century (the figure for the German Federal Republic in 1980, for example, was 1.3 per cent). Prussia was thus a highly militarized state (i.e. one in which the military consumed the lion’s share of resources), but not necessarily a highly militarized society. There was no universal conscription. Peacetime training was still short and perfunctory by present-day standards, the social structure of the army still porous.

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.

 

[Testerian2]

about why Prussia was militarized. Why can this not be in the game instead?

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.

 

[Lindaegan]

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".

And what would this "Prussian Government" reform include? The militarization mechanic in EUIV is already generic. See here. So already you have this mechanic available to every tag. How would you differentiate normal "militarization" with a Prussian one?

CKIII is empty because you can do anything, whenever you want. Again that is not what I'm suggesting. I am saying you should be able to do plausible things, and the less plausible it is the longer it should take, and the more resources it should take.

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

No, I want them to come up with systems to allow many interesting historical events to arise naturally. And other, ahistorical yet plausible, events. For militarization specifically - have some requirements. Perhaps a light conscription law; related privileges given to the nobility; a large number of pops in the army when compared to other populations; investing in army bureaucracy/buildings, whether through non-linear tech or otherwise. A high number of pops employed by the army as opposed to the navy/trading fleets. I am not suggesting that these mechanics be removed - I am suggesting that they (a) require effort on the part of the player (as opposed to a button click) and (b) come with trade-offs. Perhaps your naval capabilities will be affected. Maybe your diplomatic situation is worsened for your intense militarization. Maybe the nobility get extremely influential, and can affect your politics.

None of these are in my eyes extremely difficult to implement. Specifically when it comes to Prussia (or, as I said, any tag most of whose pops reside in the Prussian/Brandenburg areas, since tags are just names if we neither have NIs or MTs), all you need to do is differentiate the militarization mechanic in some way. Have flavorful, specific privileges. Provide historical flavor events related to this militarization that other countries may not have.

Also, you know, don't make the mechanic only a modifier fountain.

Now if you have been for many years a trading nation - perhaps you are playing as Venice - it should be much, much harder to get to this state in the first place. Nine times out of ten you should fail miserably. Or it should happen over the course of centuries. It should cost much more than you gain; in fact, it should be completely illogical. But it should be doable, for any crazy asshole who wants to do it.

If you do not want to play Prussian government - just play any other tag.

What?

 

[emperorgamer11]

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)

 

[Ulpia Batavorum]

I think but certainly hope the PC team is not just looking at the good things from previous game and improving on those but is mostly looking at the bad things from the game this is going to replace. So EU4, and if they do they will realise that Prussian militarisation didn't exist so the entire mechanic implemented in EU4 should be scrapped. If anything there was German militarisation within several Geman states, which is nothing more than switching to standing armies in order to preserve the military professionalism that had been gained during the 30 years war. Simply because professionalism was becoming more important in winning battles than numbers and army tradition. States simply started realising that the old levy and mercenary system wasn't good enough anymore due to the rapid loss of professionalism within that system, where with a standing army you could not only gain professionalism on the battlefield (including as mercenary) but also by study, training, drilling that would also reduce if not prefent decay of professionalism. That is what PC should simulate, and as a result if the right tag holding the Prussian cores gets a high enough professionalism and creates a standing army they should be able to switch tag to Prussia. I would be fine if that came with a national idea that reduces professionalism decay or boosts morale to simulate how Prussia historically doubled down on professionalism and its standing army.
Something to add, militarisation also existed long before German militarisation. The Ottoman Janisaries = militarisation but with a limited recruitement pool (slaves), the French Gendarmes = militarisation but with a limited recruitement pool (nobles). All this can and should be possible to simulate in PC without the need of some silly EU4 militarisation construct (let alone be exclusive to Prussia).

 

[Vlad123]

And what would this "Prussian Government" reform include? The militarization mechanic in EUIV is already generic. See here. So already you have this mechanic available to every tag. How would you differentiate normal "militarization" with a Prussian one?

CKIII is empty because you can do anything, whenever you want. Again that is not what I'm suggesting. I am saying you should be able to do plausible things, and the less plausible it is the longer it should take, and the more resources it should take.

No, I want them to come up with systems to allow many interesting historical events to arise naturally. And other, ahistorical yet plausible, events. For militarization specifically - have some requirements. Perhaps a light conscription law; related privileges given to the nobility; a large number of pops in the army when compared to other populations; investing in army bureaucracy/buildings, whether through non-linear tech or otherwise. A high number of pops employed by the army as opposed to the navy/trading fleets. I am not suggesting that these mechanics be removed - I am suggesting that they (a) require effort on the part of the player (as opposed to a button click) and (b) come with trade-offs. Perhaps your naval capabilities will be affected. Maybe your diplomatic situation is worsened for your intense militarization. Maybe the nobility get extremely influential, and can affect your politics.

None of these are in my eyes extremely difficult to implement. Specifically when it comes to Prussia (or, as I said, any tag most of whose pops reside in the Prussian/Brandenburg areas, since tags are just names if we neither have NIs or MTs), all you need to do is differentiate the militarization mechanic in some way. Have flavorful, specific privileges. Provide historical flavor events related to this militarization that other countries may not have.

Also, you know, don't make the mechanic only a modifier fountain.

Now if you have been for many years a trading nation - perhaps you are playing as Venice - it should be much, much harder to get to this state in the first place. Nine times out of ten you should fail miserably. Or it should happen over the course of centuries. It should cost much more than you gain; in fact, it should be completely illogical. But it should be doable, for any crazy asshole who wants to do it.

What?

Well if posible i want play tall,trading and razing other countries withouth expand my country so much.

 

[A Pink Duck]

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".

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.