Developer Diary 3 – Design Philosophy

[Skarion]

As for the day triggers, they are not needed to begin with. The new engine makes events appear when they are supposed to rather then the day when they are supposed to. So they will not trigger if it makes no sense and will trigger when certain conditions have been met + MTTH (be it before or after the actual date). The decisions do the same thing: make an event happen when it is supposed to rather then at the date when it happened.

Even if the developers won't use them it's needed for the modders to create history better.

Even if the developers don't agree with the modders, at least don't remove the modders most important tools.

AFAIK I wouldn't even be able to continue my mod project over to HoI3 at all with the current mod capacity that exist (and if I can it seems like I would need to go kamikaze over the details everywhere).

And the below ones were stated to be wrong in this thread, so in a summary:

So we have: AI with historical goals,

No.

historical decisions

No.

possibly historical missions.

No.

 

[Skarion]

Gonna post another post after the last one as I want to separate the two posts.

Paradox seems to managed to save EU3 and make it an masterpiece with the help of expansions, though lost a few supporters as the early problems it had.

Paradox lost lots of customers as that bought HoI3 and are now unlikely to buy another game, at least not until it's patched.

What I am most frightened of in Vicky 2 is that the developers will try to reach for their own stars, not worrying about the planet they leave behind, though with the earlier problems Paradox as a company had they will go too far and lacking a lot in the essence of the game.

So the fear is that they will end halfway to the stars, without any possibility to go back nor forwards, and with no one that will buy the game as of bugs, unhistorical games and general bad advertisement etc.

The map is awesome, the developers has put a lot of interesting thoughts into the project, though I hope they won't go too far as their only true source of success IMO is to:

- Make a good game that's not too bugged and is playable.
- Make sure it won't alienate the original fan base too much.
- If trying to reach for the stars, try to add enough to fill the way there as well (modding ability to add events based on dates!).

 

[unmerged(71032)]

Answering your concerns Skarion (from the player position ofc, not the dev), I think so called "flavour events" go at least some way in the direction of keeping "old school" players interested in the new title.

Truth to be told, I was positively enchanted by the EU2 historical events that have let me actually learn about various events in the history I either had no idea about or had only basic knowledge.

This is very understimated aspect of the old Paradox titles - not historically plausible game, but game with so many historical refrences that it makes people interested in developing their knowledge about the era. EU2 did that (even more with the mods), so did the legendary CORE for HoI1 (and HoI2 that to large extend WAS the CORE thanks to the huge work of Steel and the team).

There is whole bunch of games that use historical background, but in their core are paper-rock-scissors games. Ultimately, they might even have been better then Paradox titles in terms of mechanics, balance and AI (because AI had less things to consider in decision making process, it was more effective). Still, Paradox titles felt better fit in the history not really because of the mechanics, but because of the immersion that events were creating.

I honestly hope that keeping good pack of history related decisions and "flavour" events will make the game better and capable of keeping the feed of passionate players, instead of the ones that forget about the title right off when something new shows on the horizon.

 

[Dragoneer]

Answering your concerns Skarion (from the player position ofc, not the dev), I think so called "flavour events" go at least some way in the direction of keeping "old school" players interested in the new title.

Truth to be told, I was positively enchanted by the EU2 historical events that have let me actually learn about various events in the history I either had no idea about or had only basic knowledge.

This is very understimated aspect of the old Paradox titles - not historically plausible game, but game with so many historical refrences that it makes people interested in developing their knowledge about the era. EU2 did that (even more with the mods), so did the legendary CORE for HoI1 (and HoI2 that to large extend WAS the CORE thanks to the huge work of Steel and the team).

There is whole bunch of games that use historical background, but in their core are paper-rock-scissors games. Ultimately, they might even have been better then Paradox titles in terms of mechanics, balance and AI (because AI had less things to consider in decision making process, it was more effective). Still, Paradox titles felt better fit in the history not really because of the mechanics, but because of the immersion that events were creating.

I honestly hope that keeping good pack of history related decisions and "flavour" events will make the game better and capable of keeping the feed of passionate players, instead of the ones that forget about the title right off when something new shows on the horizon.

When they failed to make enough decisions in hoi3, how do you think it will go with 100 years to cover? I mean, both eu3 and hoi3 has very few specific decisions to speak of, most of the eu3s where just random boring decisions, but hey if they can make it happen and give us alot of decisions for most of the countries it might not be too bad. Otherwise i agree with you fully, the events i vicky probally educated me more about the 1900s than school.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

When they failed to make enough decisions in hoi3, how do you think it will go with 100 years to cover?

I don't think anyone from the playerbase asked them for those decisions in HoI3, to be fair.

See, HoI3 crowd are wierd folk, focused on barrels size and thinkness of armor, more serious ones on the logistics issues and realistic combat model.

Asking for historical feeling of the game via event/decision system was always low on their (ours?) priorities list - they (we) assumed it can be achieved by realistic combat model and perfectling AI routines.

 

[Skarion]

Asking for historical feeling of the game via event/decision system was always low on their (ours?) priorities list - they (we) assumed it can be achieved by realistic combat model and perfectling AI routines.

There were a lot of requests of events in HoI3, as people said that even if it worked with the dynamic engine in EU3 with the expansions, it can't work on such a small time frame as then it's better with hard coded events.

Paradox announced that they listened on their fans by implementing the decisions, while still removing the events the people had stated for in the forum.

Though as no one knew about decisions I doubt they could ask for them, though I remember reading a few dozen demands for the implementation of the militarization of the Rhineland.

Answering your concerns Skarion (from the player position ofc, not the dev), I think so called "flavour events" go at least some way in the direction of keeping "old school" players interested in the new title.

I hope that it's enough to make the game keep it's unique feeling and the feeling of the historical context. Which I hope the flavor events are more than:

You've won the Olympics!
"Ok"

With the lack of substance and ability to interact with which irritated me greatly with certain flavor events.

 

[OHgamer]

AFAIK there is definitely a Remilitarization of the Rhineland decision in HoI3 for Germany that, if Germany takes the event, triggers responses for Britain and France to lower their neutrality.

If players want more options for ENG or FRA beyond that, it's not exactly difficult to mod in, my guess would be a DoW option for France is not included in the belief that if the AI took it even a small percent (even just 1% - or once every hundred games) of the time a lot of players would feel the event was too "ahistorical" hence having only the one response.

So I don't see, Skarion, where there is an issue here. The main pre-war events are in HoI3 as decisions for the nation that has them, with follow-up responses available for those nations impacted by the decision.

Not all that different from the event system, and I see no reason why the vast majority of events, both the base Vanilla ones and even most of the VIP events, can not be remodelled either in the base game or by modders post game release. And with the much more flexible triggers in Clausewitz engine, these decisions will be much better to script to fit the context of the game, less dependent on hard dates (though even that can be gotten around, see Magna Mundi mod). So long as there are year triggers (and there are in EU3 and HoI3, so why would V2 be different?), almost everything can be narrowed down to fire within a one year frame of the historical date of the action and will fire if the other trigger conditions warrant the decision firing.

 

[Skarion]

So I don't see, Skarion, where there is an issue here. The main pre-war events are in HoI3 as decisions for the nation that has them, with follow-up responses available for those nations impacted by the decision.

I haven't played HoI3 so I don't know.

Just said his claim that there didn't exist anyone asking for events for HoI3 was wrong as I read the forum continuously during HoI3 was programmed.

Not all that different from the event system, and I see no reason why the vast majority of events, both the base Vanilla ones and even most of the VIP events, can not be remodelled either in the base game or by modders post game release.

Though only if you can some how control the diplomatic behavior of an individual country and have dates in the modding abilities.

So long as there are year triggers (and there are in EU3 and HoI3, so why would V2 be different?), almost everything can be narrowed down to fire within a one year frame of the historical date of the action and will fire if the other trigger conditions warrant the decision firing.

All right, though a year is not nearly enough when you want to keep the countries occupied in the right order though in the same limited time period and I can't see why a date modifier is so hard to add.

(HashMap<Date, Event> events or HashMap<Event, Date> events, based on how the calculations are made, have Date as an String and voila, the CPU demands would be minimal and only be larger for each Date focused event which was added, which would be none with the released vanilla).

 

[unmerged(127071)]

At least for me personally the events have been a non-issue since EU3. I'm not a big fan of that, but I've accepted it and I know Paradox isn't going back into the sphere of EU2 and I won't beat that dead horse anymore (haven't done so in years in fact), even though I would love to see them.

Conformity is that jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. ~John F. Kennedy

 

[Gwalcmai]

Conformity is that jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. ~John F. Kennedy

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it."

- W.C. Fields.​

 

[Green Giant]

What Victoria had was two classes of event; major and flavour. We are looking to shunt the major events in decisions and make them more generic, thus if things are right in Japan you will get the Meji Restoration, but you can play another uncivilised country and get the same effect. The flavour events remain. Now, overall a point of prestige here or a small increase in CON there is not going to make or break your game, but this is your country that made a huge scientific breakthrough and won a noble prize this year and a not generic country. Thus, we are trying to balance the goal of a sand box game while trying to provide the immersion of playing a particular country.

This is exactly what I heard from Paradox for EUIII and I felt that the event system was not very good. I mean you had all these events for civil wars, revolutions, and religious strife and things that actually happened during that time period. So the intent was there. But none of these events EVER fired. The conditions were impossible to meet and it was too easy to avoid the negative consquences of certain decisions.

Every single game protestants, catholiocs, and muslims lived together peacefully, France dominated the HRE while the European powers watched, from 1430 to 1820 there was never a civil war or revolution anywhere in the world, and nothing was ever remotely plausible after 1500. EUIII WAS on rails just not event driven rails because the engine created nearly the same results every time.

I felt the Magnus Mundi mod really got it right in that events served to help keep the game plausible AND helped achieve a good bit of randomness. I didn't feel like my nation was on rails because I could still play in the manner that I wished it just meant there were consequences for me and the rest of the world. The world felt more plausible because there were revolutions and civil wars and sometimes nations broke apart from civil strife and these things weren't necessarily destined to happen from the start but caused by the player or AI making certain decisions, but they were event driven.

I just hope Paradox has learned something from MM.

 

[Aleksei]

You can't have heard that, since decisions did not exist in EU3.

 

[Alfred Packer]

I just hope Paradox has learned something from MM.

I hope they haven't. I love EU3:IN - Vanilla. Maybe for hardcore gamers with enough free time to play 3+ hours a day, being shackled to a grindstone by events is super fun (in fact, I'll concede that it is probably gobs of fun). But I have time to play maybe 3 hours a week. For me, a casual gamer, I want to be able to have fun. If a game is going to take me months to complete, I don't want the ending screwed up by events I have no control over - something that has happened to me more than once in Victoria 1 - (or events that seem to punish types of gameplay arbitrarily - something MM takes an almost sadistic delight in).

With limited game time, I want a sandbox to mess around in and enjoy.

Besides, Paradox has not abandoned the 2d-lovin' event junkies. For the Glory is already out, Arsenal of Democracy isn't far behind and there will doubtless be a Vicky based game coming out some time in the future.

 

[Zelvik]

I hope they haven't. I love EU3:IN - Vanilla. Maybe for hardcore gamers with enough free time to play 3+ hours a day, being shackled to a grindstone by events is super fun (in fact, I'll concede that it is probably gobs of fun). But I have time to play maybe 3 hours a week. For me, a casual gamer, I want to be able to have fun. If a game is going to take me months to complete, I don't want the ending screwed up by events I have no control over - something that has happened to me more than once in Victoria 1 - (or events that seem to punish types of gameplay arbitrarily - something MM takes an almost sadistic delight in).

With limited game time, I want a sandbox to mess around in and enjoy.

Besides, Paradox has not abandoned the 2d-lovin' event junkies. For the Glory is already out, Arsenal of Democracy isn't far behind and there will doubtless be a Vicky based game coming out some time in the future.

Sorry, but that hardly has to do anything with time availability but has much to do with your personal taste. I generally cant spare much more time than you can, often less, but I still dont want to see a generic sandbox that pretends to have a historical setting. Thats not the type of game I expect. At least not from this specific producer. If I want that type of game I can get others, that do this particular type of sandbox play quite a bit better and beeing quite a bit more fun.

I have been playing strategy games ever since I fist stumbled across CIV1 almost 2 decades ago and I have done so ever since. The unique selling proposition of Paradox games when I first encountered them was that you could play in a setting that played out historical and had that particular historical charme throughout the gameplay expeience. Whats the big point of taking country X and try to acchieve what it didnt acchieve in history, when it does not face any of the challenges it did in our real history. The challenge is simply not there. If country X is as generic as country Y apart from different flag and soldier 3D model, that flavour of the old games just vanishes. If I want a game that provides generic rulesets, I rather play a CIV game or Total War game as their premise is set for exactly that type of game. And they deliver on that in a much more intriguing way than current P-Dox games do.

 

[Driggsd]

At its core we are seeking to set up a sandbox game. Victoria 2 is all about changing history as well as making it. So from that point of view you are not going to see the following happen: It is 1914 and you are Germany. You and your French and Russian allies have together all but destroyed Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. However, that matters not because you are now allied with Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire in a life or death struggle with Russia and France. Basically, we are looking to remove the hard coded steering out of the game and allow the player more freedom.

This is why I will buy this game. I hate the replay events and forced events. If I wanted to follow history I could just watch the history channel. Thanks for giving us a real choice!

 

[Nikolai II]

You can't have heard that, since decisions did not exist in EU3.

Before In Nomine, that is. And since that is included in EU3 Complete, many people say "EU3" and mean "EU3+NA+IN"

 

[Arilou]

Honestly, turning the game into a pure sandbox seems, and I'm going to be blunt, to be an incredibly stupid idea.

That's not to say that hard-coded events are the best possible idea (in many cases they are not) but here's the rub: Sandbox means generic. it means that there will be an "optimal" way to play.

What made the Paradox games fun was that each country faced a *different* challenge. Playing as Britain (with it's colonial focus and industrial head-start but confined long-term growth) was very different from as Russia (with it's backwards politics and economical system but huge potential)

Making the game *more* like a sandbox should not be the goal! The goal should be to make the challenges based on the starting positions different and enjoyable! It *should* feel different to play an absolutist monarchy like Russia than a democratic republic like the USA, and it should definitely not be easy to convert one to another! If you want to make Russia a democratic republic it should take hard work and sacrifice.

The goal should obviously not be a game constrained by hard-coded events, but NEITHER SHOULD IT BE A SANDBOX (god I hate that term!)

To quote a certain man from the time-period: "Men make history, but in circumstances not of their own making." Do the circumstances right and the mechanics that flow out of them right and things will take care of itself. DON'T FUCKING MAKE IT A BLOODY USELESS SANDBOX!

 

[King]

Honestly, turning the game into a pure sandbox seems, and I'm going to be blunt, to be an incredibly stupid idea.

That's not to say that hard-coded events are the best possible idea (in many cases they are not) but here's the rub: Sandbox means generic. it means that there will be an "optimal" way to play.

What made the Paradox games fun was that each country faced a *different* challenge. Playing as Britain (with it's colonial focus and industrial head-start but confined long-term growth) was very different from as Russia (with it's backwards politics and economical system but huge potential)

Making the game *more* like a sandbox should not be the goal! The goal should be to make the challenges based on the starting positions different and enjoyable! It *should* feel different to play an absolutist monarchy like Russia than a democratic republic like the USA, and it should definitely not be easy to convert one to another! If you want to make Russia a democratic republic it should take hard work and sacrifice.

The goal should obviously not be a game constrained by hard-coded events, but NEITHER SHOULD IT BE A SANDBOX (god I hate that term!)

To quote a certain man from the time-period: "Men make history, but in circumstances not of their own making." Do the circumstances right and the mechanics that flow out of them right and things will take care of itself. DON'T FUCKING MAKE IT A BLOODY USELESS SANDBOX!

It is not a true sandbox in the regard that every country is equal. However we would prefer to rely on good game mechanics rather than events to make the game more interesting. I even point out why making Russia a democratic republic will be hard work.

 

[Arilou]

It is not a true sandbox in the regard that every country is equal. However we would prefer to rely on good game mechanics rather than events to make the game more interesting. I even point out why making Russia a democratic republic will be hard work.

Then stop giving me heart-attacks and stop using the s-word!

 

[King]

Then stop giving me heart-attacks and stop using the s-word!

I use the S-word because we want you, our potential customers, to be clear about what it is we are trying to sell you here. So that those of you who do feel a game is pointless without steering events will not buy the game by accident and come back here and complain. I think this is really important to do this because to be honest it is down right wrong to try to misrepresent what it is we are trying to do with Victoria 2.