Over the years of playing various Paradox titles, I have noticed an interesting aspect that people never really mention when discussing Paradox games, in particular the EU games. Given how EU4's development cycle is very likely coming to an end with patch 1.30 and EU5 announcement likely lurking around the corner, it could be useful to talk about this concept now, as EU series have delved into this concept a lot in particular.
What is Determinism?
Determinism is a philosophical concept with various interpretations. For the purposes of this topic, I will use this:
"Future events are predetermined to occur, whether it be due to fate or due to existing and/or prior conditions"
I understand if you have disagreements with this definition, not to mention that there are various types of Determinism. For the sake of simplicity whilst maintaining the point I wish to convey personally, I will rely on this definition.
How does Determinism apply to games prior?
Back in the days of EU1 and EU2, those games were highly scripted through many, many events. Even centuries down the line, certain major events were determined to happen.
Even the country leaders, generals and admirals were scripted. Every leader and his reign was predetermined before the game even began, and you could even check such in the files.
For a history enthusiast like myself, playing these games felt amazing. It felt like living through events in history. Reading the flavour text of each event was a joy. My first games in EU1/EU2/FTG, not to mention AGCEEP mod, were wonderful memories due to the flavour they had.
After a few games though, it felt rather repetitive.
Playing EU3, on the other hand, felt much more liberating in this regard.
The game was very flexible, introducing ideas which anyone could pick, allowing you to customize your Empire in meaningful ways. We got randomly generated rulers as well!
That being said, there were still scripted events, as you can see here: https://eu3.paradoxwikis.com/Events
Not to mention the inevitable and blatant tech disparity which was inevitably going to happen, often to extreme levels, as AI would be unlikely to undertake Westernization, let alone succeed without driving their country to ruin.
What about determinism in EU4?
I am certain you can already think of a couple examples off the bat, but let me name a few before I proceed.
Here is one case of determinism which you might not have thought of, and which I personally think is harmful to a game like EU in the long run.
National ideas!
Unlike in EU3, where you exclusively picked from a Generic Pool of ideas, allowing you to customize to your hearts' content, in EU4 you also get a passive set of National Ideas which are often incredibly powerful.
We see Determinism rearing up still, 20 years later, in a different way, but with a similar outcome.
Thoughts and suggestions about future cases of determinism
Back at the start of the thread, I used a particular interpretation of Determinism. This is intentional.
Determinism by fate is how we could describe determinism dominating EU1/2. You are bound to have the same leaders no matter what. Events and choices are also extremely likely to be the same.
Personally, I think this should either be optional, or it should not exist. It is lazy game design and hurts long-term playability. As much as I enjoyed reading the flavour of historical events, it makes for a less enjoyable game in the long run.
Determinism by conditions is much more preferable. AI makes logical choices in events. There is a logical line of occurences which leads to the next one.
Victoria 2 uses this type of Determinism a lot. Rather than leaving mechanics behind random chance, for example revolts and crises, in Victoria 2 it's almost inevitable that people will rise up, and you will understand why it is so, what chain of events led to this.
That being said, absolute determinism by conditions makes for poor and unrealistic game design as well.
It makes things repetitive, much like with Fate, albeit in a more nuanced and complex way.
It's also unrealistic, as not everyone will think the same. Think about the current political landscape, the troubles of the world, how we perceive them and possible solutions.
Paradox,
for future titles, EU5 in particular,
A long-time fan.
What is Determinism?
Determinism is a philosophical concept with various interpretations. For the purposes of this topic, I will use this:
"Future events are predetermined to occur, whether it be due to fate or due to existing and/or prior conditions"
I understand if you have disagreements with this definition, not to mention that there are various types of Determinism. For the sake of simplicity whilst maintaining the point I wish to convey personally, I will rely on this definition.
How does Determinism apply to games prior?
Back in the days of EU1 and EU2, those games were highly scripted through many, many events. Even centuries down the line, certain major events were determined to happen.
- Rise of Prussia
- War of Spanish Succession
- Time of Troubles(Smutnoe Vremya)
- Dutch revolts(and suffering monthly revolt risk of 40%)
- Emperor Chongzen's suicide and downfall of Ming China
- Fall of the Native American civilizations
Even the country leaders, generals and admirals were scripted. Every leader and his reign was predetermined before the game even began, and you could even check such in the files.
For a history enthusiast like myself, playing these games felt amazing. It felt like living through events in history. Reading the flavour text of each event was a joy. My first games in EU1/EU2/FTG, not to mention AGCEEP mod, were wonderful memories due to the flavour they had.
After a few games though, it felt rather repetitive.
- Ottomans will always blob to insane proportions and then start decaying under awful rulers and scripted events.
- Austria will almost always integrate Bohemia and become a powerhouse due to events.
- The Commonwealth will form and get absolutely destroyed in the 1700s as the Partitions were scripted.
Playing EU3, on the other hand, felt much more liberating in this regard.
The game was very flexible, introducing ideas which anyone could pick, allowing you to customize your Empire in meaningful ways. We got randomly generated rulers as well!
That being said, there were still scripted events, as you can see here: https://eu3.paradoxwikis.com/Events
Not to mention the inevitable and blatant tech disparity which was inevitably going to happen, often to extreme levels, as AI would be unlikely to undertake Westernization, let alone succeed without driving their country to ruin.
What about determinism in EU4?
I am certain you can already think of a couple examples off the bat, but let me name a few before I proceed.
- Iberian Wedding
- Burgundian Inheritance
- Time of Troubles
- Count's Feud
- French Revolution
- Even recently you see deterministic occurences introduced, with Crisis of the Ming Dynasty
Here is one case of determinism which you might not have thought of, and which I personally think is harmful to a game like EU in the long run.
National ideas!
Unlike in EU3, where you exclusively picked from a Generic Pool of ideas, allowing you to customize to your hearts' content, in EU4 you also get a passive set of National Ideas which are often incredibly powerful.
- Prussia's ideas make their army nigh-on-unbeatable.
France with Elan is an absolute monster early game.
- Ottomans are set to blob like wild.
- Russia is bound to colonise Siberia and wield massive armies.
This, in turn, has made alternate playstyles both unlikely to occur and unlikely for the player to go for.
Have you ever considered playing France as a tall and peaceful,trade oriented nation? Or Prussia as a naval power?
Unlikely. When you think of Prussia, you think of their army and stacking Discipline. This is mainly due to their national ideas.
Why play Prussia as a naval power when Denmark or Venice are much better choices?
Why play Venice as an army Juggernaut when you could pick Prussia or a Nepalese prince instead?
These questions arise quite often, just think of any country.
Have you ever considered playing France as a tall and peaceful,trade oriented nation? Or Prussia as a naval power?
Unlikely. When you think of Prussia, you think of their army and stacking Discipline. This is mainly due to their national ideas.
Why play Prussia as a naval power when Denmark or Venice are much better choices?
Why play Venice as an army Juggernaut when you could pick Prussia or a Nepalese prince instead?
These questions arise quite often, just think of any country.
Thoughts and suggestions about future cases of determinism
Back at the start of the thread, I used a particular interpretation of Determinism. This is intentional.
Determinism by fate is how we could describe determinism dominating EU1/2. You are bound to have the same leaders no matter what. Events and choices are also extremely likely to be the same.
Personally, I think this should either be optional, or it should not exist. It is lazy game design and hurts long-term playability. As much as I enjoyed reading the flavour of historical events, it makes for a less enjoyable game in the long run.
Determinism by conditions is much more preferable. AI makes logical choices in events. There is a logical line of occurences which leads to the next one.
Victoria 2 uses this type of Determinism a lot. Rather than leaving mechanics behind random chance, for example revolts and crises, in Victoria 2 it's almost inevitable that people will rise up, and you will understand why it is so, what chain of events led to this.
- Are they hungry?
- Are they nationalists trapped in a foreign country?
- Are they Liberals or Communists in an Autocratic Monarchy, pushing for reform?
- How Socially Conscious is your population as well?
That being said, absolute determinism by conditions makes for poor and unrealistic game design as well.
It makes things repetitive, much like with Fate, albeit in a more nuanced and complex way.
It's also unrealistic, as not everyone will think the same. Think about the current political landscape, the troubles of the world, how we perceive them and possible solutions.
Paradox,
for future titles, EU5 in particular,
- Try and avoid Determinism by fate as much as possible.
- Make mechanics more flexible and open rather than limiting them arbitrarily(Dharma government reforms were a wonderful addition, and they should be expanded!).
- Major Historical Events should not be arbitrarily dictated unless it's the beginning of the game.
- No one should be awarded or punished for being, rather it should be done for doing.
- Random chance is necessary for variety, but it should not mask poor design, instead it should emphasize and make the world we create and observe more natural.
A long-time fan.
- 5
- 5
- 1