ACGEEP Members? Historical Inaccuracy?

[unmerged(6777)]

MrT, again I thank you and I must say I am very impressed with your activity and the help you've given me on this forum. I have never seen such activity and assistance from a mod before. Thanks a lot!

My pleasure. We (the forum staff and the company) aim to please.

 

[minority]

Honestly, that kind of thing is not worth the work and the research effort.

If the game flow and the AI cannot be influenced through events and specific objectives, the work can be compared to no more than a glorified and research intensitive index, instead of a detailed, rich and coherent book.

Based in the above mentioned posts by Havard, I fear this game is in fact much less moddable than the first two versions. Paradox gave the community more freedom to mod the unimportant wrapping paper, but much less so the precious content.

Although I think the removal of date specific of country specific modding abilities lessens down the moddability, don't you think you're passing judgement a little too early on what can and cannot be done efficiently?

cheers

 

[knul]

Based in the above mentioned posts by Havard, I fear this game is in fact much less moddable than the first two versions. Paradox gave the community more freedom to mod the unimportant wrapping paper, but much less so the precious content.

We can change almost any variable, mod the map completely and easily, add sliders and such and will probably have a very powerful script language. How can you call that superfluous?

While we can discuss the merits and pitfalls of Paradox' choic for handling historical events, no one can deny that the moddability of EU3 is very extensive.

 

[Krantz]

We can change almost any variable, mod the map completely and easily, add sliders and such and will probably have a very powerful script language. How can you call that superfluous?

While we can discuss the merits and pitfalls of Paradox' choic for handling historical events, no one can deny that the moddability of EU3 is very extensive.

hmm feels like if it takes longer time to finish a mod for Eu3 then in Eu2.

But mods in Eu3 will be superior!

 

[Duuk]

If the game flow and the AI cannot be influenced through events and specific objectives, the work can be compared to no more than a glorified and research intensitive index, instead of a detailed, rich and coherent book.

But it's not a book. It's a game.

And as to the OH NOES THE AGC GUYS ARE GONE!...

The reason it was called the AGC was to differentiate it from the IGC, which was the main user mod for EU1. AGC was by different people than IGC. 3GC will likely be done by yet another group of people that want to watch a movie instead of play a game.

 

[Krantz]

But it's not a book. It's a game.

And as to the OH NOES THE AGC GUYS ARE GONE!...

The reason it was called the AGC was to differentiate it from the IGC, which was the main user mod for EU1. AGC was by different people than IGC. 3GC will likely be done by yet another group of people that want to watch a movie instead of play a game.

Aha didn't know that IGC have existed.

So we are now waiting for the 3GC team to show up, awesome!

 

[Evie HJ]

I expect we'll see a split in modding for EU III - a division between the 3GC road (so to speak) aiming to increase historicity at the cost of playability, and a road aiming at expanding what Paradox tried for with EU III - flexibility (possibly Mandead/my "The Great Big Mod").

I don't see the two line being very reconciliable. Given what people are asking for from 3GC, I'd expect them to restrict events to certain nations even further, and try very hard to create "historical" situations (f.e. by restricting QftNW if that's at all possible) ; whereas the other road is more likely to strike down barriers than create them (Scandinavian culture for the Sund due?), and to focus on creating interesting gameplay decisions based on history, not rigorously historical situations (not to say you can't HAVE both ; but it is hard to FOCUS on both at once).

 

[Twoflower]

I expect we'll see a split in modding for EU III - a division between the 3GC road (so to speak) aiming to increase historicity at the cost of playability, and a road aiming at expanding what Paradox tried for with EU III - flexibility (possibly Mandead/my "The Great Big Mod").

When judging the AGCEEP and its policies, please keep in mind that everything we (that is, us) did was designed for EU2, its game engine and its design philosophy. EU2 did have deterministic national events, fixed national leaders and monarchs and specific national AI files. The original philosophy of the EEP mod was just to add events, monarchs and leaders when they were "missing" and fix ones that didn't "work right", without in any way altering the way the game was intended to work. Of course, adding more events meant more "determinism" - because EU2 events worked as dei ex machinae that made stuff happen that could not result from the "natural" mechanisms of the game engine, however this was not done not to restrict or straightjacket the game, but for the sake of consistency and historical realism. It just is not right to have a lot of scripted stuff happen to the well-known great powers like England, France and Austria and hardly anything to smaller states in Germany and Italy or, even moreso, Asian and African countries, to have the historical inheritance of Bohemia by Austria represented by Austria getting Bohemia through event but nothing for the historical inheritance of Bavaria by the Palatinate.
The scope of the EEP was soon expanded to also changing scenario files, adding countries, cultures and other stuff, simply because its ability to improve the game would otherwise have been very small and because there were some very blatant inaccuracies regarding missing countries and cultures; it however always maintained a quite restricted approach, trying to limit itself to correcting inaccuracies and oversights and not breaking with design and balance decisions of Paradox - which is why, for example, the EEP never split the Iberian cultures.
Basically, it was exactly the criticism of these restrictions and the general scepticism towards big changes present in the "old" EEP from people desiring more fundamental modifications to the game (besides criticism of the somewhat dictatorial decision structures of the EEP) that led to the "secession" of the AGC, which managed to develop a very fresh, innovative, creative historical mod in a very short amount of time. With its more open approach to fundamental "reworks" of areas, and a generally very friendly, community-based atmosphere it soon became very popular, and for a long time had more activity than the EEP, which on the other hand, as the older and more conservative mod was somewhat more balanced and stable.
In the end, people managed to realise that the split just divided energies and efforts, and agreed to develop a unified mod attempting to incorporate the best of both mods. Exactly because of the "philosophical" differences, quite a lot of attention was spent on agreeing on common modding policies. Especially from the lengthy arguments about fantasy events and about suggestions to implement totally deterministic AI-only events in order to help certain constantly under-achieving AI countries, you can tell that the general attitude was always in favour of roughly sticking with EU2's game dynamics while trying to improve historical accuracy.
I, for one, (note that in the last months I have been entirely inactive in the AGCEEP for various personal reasons and thus do not in any way speak for the AGCEEP as a whole) don't think I'd be interested in a mod that "increases historicity at the expense of playability", if by that notion you imply an attempt to alter basic game mechanisms, or implement modifications that are supposed to work "against" those basic game mechanisms, and I would not consider that the AGCEEP road in any way.

I don't see the two line being very reconciliable. Given what people are asking for from 3GC, I'd expect them to restrict events to certain nations even further, and try very hard to create "historical" situations (f.e. by restricting QftNW if that's at all possible) ; whereas the other road is more likely to strike down barriers than create them (Scandinavian culture for the Sund due?), and to focus on creating interesting gameplay decisions based on history, not rigorously historical situations (not to say you can't HAVE both ; but it is hard to FOCUS on both at once).

I would be strongly interested in contributing to a mod that is based on the three pillars of historical realism, historical accuracy and historical flavour (call them the three hs, if you want ), within the dynamics and design decisions of EU3. Now, what would each of them mean:
Historical accuracy is easy: it would means attempting to correct things in the starting setups and basic game files that simply are either are obviously or at least by clear consensus incorrect, like wrong country names, missing countries, inaccurate provincial histories etc.
Historical realism means that, on the one hand, artificial restrictions, like possibly the Sound Due being only for Scandinavians when it is perfectly conceivable that the King of England, had he controlled both sides of the Sund, would have demanded it as well, are removed and, if possible, replaced by more realistic ones - for example, requiring a certain level of mercantilism for the Sound Due. On the other hand, it means striving to represent restrictions that rulers historically faced - for example, it might be desirable to make it quite difficult to subdue conquered Swiss province. A main tool in this respect should be the new flexible modifiers in EU3. What I'm on about is not "straightjacketing" the game, but making things as difficult or easy to achieve as they would have been.
Historical flavour is certainly the most difficult one. It means that there should be a certain preference for historical outcomes, and especially historical AI behaviour, where it does not restrict the game and prevent the functioning of its mechanisms. For example, this would mean that the AI should - when in doubt! - colonize the areas it colonized historically - but that it, on the other hand, jumps on "ahistorical" opportunities it gets and can react flexibly when their historical areas are already colonized. It might also mean implementing certain "flavour" events - like natural disasters or important inventions - for which it is realistic to happen no matter who owns a province - the Lisbon earthquake certainly wouldn't care if the province is ruled by Spain, the Ottomans or the Aztecs.

 

[Duuk]

Psst.

THat means that an AGCEEP High Council member is with the "Don't Straight Jacket Me!" crowd.

Bwahahahahahahahaa.

 

[Evie HJ]

Twoflower - when I spoke of the 3GC road, I was addressing what people in this thread have been asking for (and looking toward the AGCEEP crowd for this), not necessarily what members of the AGCEEP council would want to do with EU III. (Though as I mentioned in another thread, when Burgundy can lose half its territory virtually without a chance to fight back because the Netherlands revolted from Denmark...well, yeah. Let's just say I object to certain decisions made by AGCEEP :-D)

As for your three H,...

Historical Accuracy is easy, and very much desirable (as long as we're not talking about adding more than a dozen new provinces or two. Redraw borders, yes. Add provinces? As little as possible.)
Historical Realism sounds quite feasible as well, though it must be balanced against interesting gameplay. Yes, taking and holding Switzerland should be hard to pull- but not to the point where it is essentialy impossible to the common player.
Historical Flavor is, as you said, the hardest, and likely the one we least have tools for. It doesn't seem we can guide the AI colonial policies given what statements have been made.

As far as the quakes and other natural disasters theory go, one might wish to respond with the chaos theory. Though I suppose for the really major natural disasters, we could always go ahead.

Hmmm...what could be fun though is have certain provinces have a "Volcano_Present" flag, others have a "Earthquake-prone" flag and so forth, and then have random disasters events that check for this flag. This, I'm 99.9% sure, is possible.

 

[unmerged(514)]

Although I think the removal of date specific of country specific modding abilities lessens down the moddability, don't you think you're passing judgement a little too early on what can and cannot be done efficiently?

cheers

Indeed. I just have the demo. In fact I am speculating a bit based on informed answers by people "in the know".

Nevertheless, I think at release state the game will in fact be LESS moddable than EU2. Look, only the confirmed inability to code each AI to be more or less beligerant, to target specific countries/provincies for warfare, to go colonize this or that area preferably, significantly curbs the game's moddability.

 

[unmerged(514)]

[...]3GC will likely be done by yet another group of people that want to watch a movie instead of play a game.

After posting in so many threads where I also posted, it is strange you still don't get what is my opinion. If you have trouble with my english skills, there is a significant number of other players who voice exactly the same concerns as myself.

 

[unmerged(514)]

I expect we'll see a split in modding for EU III - a division between the 3GC road (so to speak) aiming to increase historicity at the cost of playability, [...]

Such a bold claim, for such a fickle concept...

 

[unmerged(514)]

[...](f.e. by restricting QftNW if that's at all possible) ; [...]

That's definitely a must. Right now, it is completely overpowered and overused in a game that still claims some historical roots.

[...]whereas the other road is more likely to strike down barriers than create them (Scandinavian culture for the Sund due?), and to focus on creating interesting gameplay decisions based on history, not rigorously historical situations (not to say you can't HAVE both ; but it is hard to FOCUS on both at once).

Lets hope by 1600 we are not seeing Scandinavian culture in Morocco...

I claim the ONLY way to implement "interesting gameplay decisions based on History", as you put it, is done by framing the gameflow within a historical context. This is achieved by coding "larger scope events" to lead the game somewhere not random.

Let me agree with you and let me stress I want to play this game exactly to have "interesting gameplay decisions based on History".

 

[unmerged(514)]

[...]
I would be strongly interested in contributing to a mod that is based on the three pillars of historical realism, historical accuracy and historical flavour (call them the three hs, if you want ), within the dynamics and design decisions of EU3. Now, what would each of them mean:
Historical accuracy is easy: it would means attempting to correct things in the starting setups and basic game files that simply are either are obviously or at least by clear consensus incorrect, like wrong country names, missing countries, inaccurate provincial histories etc.
Historical realism means that, on the one hand, artificial restrictions, like possibly the Sound Due being only for Scandinavians when it is perfectly conceivable that the King of England, had he controlled both sides of the Sund, would have demanded it as well, are removed and, if possible, replaced by more realistic ones - for example, requiring a certain level of mercantilism for the Sound Due. On the other hand, it means striving to represent restrictions that rulers historically faced - for example, it might be desirable to make it quite difficult to subdue conquered Swiss province. A main tool in this respect should be the new flexible modifiers in EU3. What I'm on about is not "straightjacketing" the game, but making things as difficult or easy to achieve as they would have been.
Historical flavour is certainly the most difficult one. It means that there should be a certain preference for historical outcomes, and especially historical AI behaviour, where it does not restrict the game and prevent the functioning of its mechanisms. For example, this would mean that the AI should - when in doubt! - colonize the areas it colonized historically - but that it, on the other hand, jumps on "ahistorical" opportunities it gets and can react flexibly when their historical areas are already colonized. It might also mean implementing certain "flavour" events - like natural disasters or important inventions - for which it is realistic to happen no matter who owns a province - the Lisbon earthquake certainly wouldn't care if the province is ruled by Spain, the Ottomans or the Aztecs.

I want to catch this boat. Where can I sign in?

 

[Evie HJ]

You're free to claim what you will. But it won't be the path Mandead or I will focus in.

And if you restrict certain game choices from players in the name of historical accuracy (ie, QFTNW being restricted to certain nations), then by definition you are sacrificing gameplay in the name of historical accuracy.

What I might consider for GBM is to have various nations start with their first idea *already* selected for them, if that's possible.

In that case, Portugal would indeed be one of the very, very few nations to start with QftNW.

 

[otacu]

I'm with Ubik on some matters....

Limiting Qftnw to certain countries is a BAD idea by itself. Freedom is always welcomed BUT.... what we need are triggers for NI.

It's bad game feature that every national idea is available for every country.

Naval ideas shouldn't even be available for landlocked countries. And why should a merchant republic (and i guess with innovative internal policies) like Venice be able to take Deus Vult?
Scientific revolution for Theocracies sounds "strange" too....

What many players (and modders) want is not some hardcoded limitations for countries but limitations given by the game setup.

For example why not implement a range for colonization (tied to naval technology) like i proposed in another thread. This way countries will get their rightfull advantage from their position.

 

[Evie HJ]

Restricting it based on techs, I oppose. It does not take much techs (if at all) to begin basic exploration and colonization. Keep in mind that China sent out a large exploration fleet before the game even began.

Restricting ideas based on sliders might be worth looking into on the other hand. I don't know that it's possible, but it's something to look into. Restricting them based on geographic position...I don'T know if we can restrict them from the players, but we can look into doing it for the AI.

Events that negatively impact a player for conflicting NI/Sliders are CERTAINLY possible, and will be looked into.

 

[Moltke]

I wouldn't mind a few flavor events here and there, but I'm very glad Paradox took the less historically-constrained route.

 

[Mad King James]

Restrictions are crap. I'm sorry but it's true, they're crap. The only real thing that really works is self-enforcing restrictions. For instance:

Quest for the New World isn't really overpowered for two reasons:
1: You need Naval tradition to get worthwhile Explorers (and exploration takes longer than in the demo in the real game)
2: Your discoveries spread to your neighbors anyways

This is a self-enforcing restriction. See how while QftNW is "useful" it means sacrificing an Idea. That idea slot could have given you +50% morale for your armies, or +1 seige for your leaders, or +50% manpower. Unless you're so mad for colonizing that you NEED to have first crack at territories before the exploration spreads to your neighbors, it's useless.

The way to keep the AI colonizing the "right" areas is simple: there's a reason they didn't colonize there. It was either unattractive or unavailable. This is a self-enforcing restriction.

If someone needs to be restrained from ahistorically crushing their neighbors, then those neighbors are either ahistorically weak, or ahistorically negatively-aligned, or that someone is ahistorically powerful or ahistorically warlike. The WRONG thing to do is prevent them from attacking through some gamey means.