Duuk, it was highly unlikely that England went protestant just then, but because of it's population and culture it was just a matter of time (No state in northern Europe kept catholisism?)
Amusing Aspects of the Discussion at Hand
- Thread starter Duuk
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Skarion said:
True. But the MOMENT was unlikely. I'm not saying that they wouldn't go Prot or Reformed due to a later event, just that Henry VIII wasn't at all likely to be the one to do it.
Arilou said:
Come to think about it that's my take of CK. No matter who I played it felt about the same. Might also have something to do with their silly cartoon portraits.
Joe
Duuk said:And those people are also just as wrong. I'll rail against them just as much as I'll rail against the people that want a strict historical event set, have no fear on that issue.
The majority of the people I see screaming and hollering against the idea are arguing for deterministic events. The same deterministic events that killed the "feel" of EU2, Vicky, and HOI. The same events that come out of nowhere and have NOTHING to do with the game at hand.
"Catholic gunpowder plot? But we've been a totally protestant country for 100 years!"
I for one dont believe events killed the feel of EUII
1,000,0000 man armies did that . Events certainly did not kill the feel of Viccky
thats really stretching things
Duuk said:
This is the root of the problem though: so far as I can tell most people don't think those events 'killed' the 'feel' of EU2/Vicky/HoI. At the end of the day EU2 got a pretty good balance of historical/plausible outcomes.
Myself I am skeptical, but for a completely different reason. For all their faults EU2-style events are simple to understand, simple to mod, and easier to fix. CK-style events are complex, opaque, confusing, and far, far harder to balance. Not to mention they clog up processors for breakfast. Not get me wrong, I like CK events, but they are not want I want for EU3. I'd far rather see an expanded EU2 basis (ie, having province triggers as mentioned earlier in this thread).
stnylan said:
So you're saying you've never had a good game going in (especially) Vicky when suddenly a historical event set fires that makes no sense and ruins your game?
My two examples that I keep beating to death:
Playing Mexico. Third in prestige. Very wealthy. I get "Mexico defaults on loans" causing me to lose a ton of prestige, clear a bunch of loans I didn't have, and gets me into a war with Britain and France.
Playing the Ottoman Republic. Been a liberal democracy for 30 years. Russia is my best friend, and the Bear and I have smashed Austria happily together. +200 relations for 20+ years. Suddenly... "The Ottoman Empire is oppressing the Slavs!". Keep in mind that I've been a full citizenship, full voting rights republic for 20 years. Keep in mind that Russia adores me. Now I have to fight a war against Russia (and the Russian peace ai, which won't accept peace until you annex them
)Deterministic events ruin the game, because they don't allow you to break the historical pattern of failure for troubled countries.
So, all you're really saying is that those events need to have more sensible triggers? If you read my post I am not against situationalism, per se, just the leviathin that is the CK system. Anyway, the Mexico example especially is like getting annoyed when the bankruptcy events hit as Spain. History is replete with illogical things happening. Heavens if it annoys you so much why don't you just add an extra trigger here and there yourself? At the moment, at least, it's not very difficult. And for those of us whose ability to write and interpret events is not that great the simplicity of the EU2 system is one of its gifts.
(edited to make my meaning a little clearer)
(edited to make my meaning a little clearer)
Last edited:
Even if that would mean that Austria wouldn't inherit Hungary, because the event fails to trigger due to in-game situations not being met?Smirfy said:
Tambourmajor said:
The King of Hungary died in a specific year whether in our AAR's we have him dieing in combat or of the pox
Should the event have more thought? Yes I do think it should! But lets have a look at the model first because it is essentially a play balance event.
Last edited:
Because numerous posters and by appearances a majority of them who are heavily pro-situational events are for completely generic events. One could have both historical and situational events so Sweden gets Gustav Vasa's Reforms but we don't have to worry about balancing the event for the 100 odd other nations in the game. Of course we already have the ability to do that, albeit very poorly, with the random events engine of EUII.
Learn to read. The word "random" is found nowhere in my post. The problem with the whole situational events idea is that:
1. It subsumes the question of importing MTTH and the CK event engine.
2. People like yourself post only the most cursory events which they don't want to happen. Fine rewrite the triggers.
3. People like yourself argue for things fitting the historical situation, yet evidence an extremely poor knowledge of history.
I'm sorry that your rampant fanboyism does not allow you to actually debate the points raised nor for you to remember that your opinion does not define the situational events camp. By appearances you are in the minority for your side.
That is what it means TO YOU. Further none of that requires a major game change, merely good research, coding, and betatesting. One could do most everything you describe without making major changes to the game.
Answer: You need to read some real history and not the spoon feeding from current "history" books. Spanish bankrupcy was driven by the extreme costs of maintaining Spanish foreign policy which meant wars at a distance, large navies, and paying heavily for troops. These expenditures lead to the debasement of the currency until such point that whole regions of Spain reverted to a barter economy. Aside from causing a mass depression (to use modern terms) this had the direct of effect of making it virtually impossible for the Spanish crown to collect taxes. Marching troops North to Flanders from Italy was expensive, maintaining a navy which could rival the Ottomans or English was expensive, and subsidizing various Catholic ventures was expensive. If Spain hadn't had the new world gold coming in, these expenses would have crippled state sooner, leading to an earlier debasement of the currency, and an earlier collapse of the tax revenue system.
Far from being a drain on the Spanish economy, the New World greatly subsidized the Old. This is obvious when one looks at the income Spain gained when it assumed Portugal's empire as well. The only thing in the New World which could be argued to have a net negative effect would be the precious metals; these would have resulted in classic inflation due to an increased money supply. However the inflation from such sources is a fraction of that incurred by currency debasement and the attendant collapse of the taxation system (historians put inflation due to gold at around 300%, but this was spread over 100 years - so in reality we'd be talking about 3% inflation per annum). In any event, the 1607 bankruptcy occurred while Spain was witnessing little inflation - if not outright deflating.
Massive inflation was the result of direct Spanish policy. It was done in an attempt to cover the costs of foreign and religious policy. Without the new world it would have happened FAR sooner (either that or Spain would not have been fighting so often in so many places). At the heart of the problem was Spain was spending several million more ducats than it had coming in revenue. Virtually all of these expenditures were coming from involvement in European affairs, virtually none came from the New World.
Thank you for providing an example of how NOT to do a situational event. If you were serious about doing this well you'd have an event trigger which would allow Spain the chance to intervene in European affairs at crushing cost, but would have severe implications to foreign and domestic policy if they did not do so. Spanish involvement in the New World would delay the bankruptcy, and would only accrue a small amount of inflation from the gold provinces.
So why do we have the Spanish bankruptcy if it is tied poorly to the historical state of the game? To force the Spanish decline. Being unable to easily force AI Spain to enter into repetitive debt spirals in order to finance their foreign and domestic policy, we simply cheat and make it either surrender the gold mines (a large economic boon) or take a massive economic hit. In MP the problem is fundementally the same. The player simply will not feel the need to fritter away massive ducats against the OE merely to cripple their navy after Cyprus; likewise the player may well have the sense to not put Alba in the Netherlands and avoid having to send large fortunes up the Spanish Road. This becomes a nightmare balance issue all early Spanish gains compound heavily and like the Turks it is possible for them ride early success all the way through the game.
That would not have been unreasonable, EU has always left minority religionists off the map. Making a country totally one religion was simply impractical for the time period. Spain tried torture, punatitive confiscation, and mass deportation - and it still didn't get rid of all the heretics. Having the 10% or so in the minority trying the gunpowder plot is within the realm of historical plausibility.
Essentially Duuk you want different triggers on events so they only fire when you think they should for "historical plausibility" reasons.
Jomini said:
(various snipping in the quote)
1) The CK event engine is wonderful. It is, without a doubt, the best event engine currently available from any paradox game. The ability to use certain things as "definitely fire", "definitely do not fire", "make it more likely to fire", "sort of slow it down", "well maybe not impact it but maybe tilt the AI to choose this option more in this case" etc etc is a great starting point for the events engine for EU3. I'd be disappointed if they took a step backwards.
2) I hope to rewrite the triggers... in EU3. Not everyone plays only SP, and the "so mod it yourself" answer is always a cop-out.
3) I have an excellent knowledge of history. Just not Swedish history since well... with the exception of the 30 years war, Sweden didn't do much
<watches his beta application get burned>I am far from a fanboi. I've argued on the side of Paradox in some things, and I've called a duck a duck many, many times. Please note that I've received emails from BiB telling me they "have a file on me" and such, I've had a 3 day ban from the forums (which I deserved, but which was for a good cause. It's like a purple heart
) When things are good with a product, I make sure to tell the people here that they are good. I personally feel that gives me the ability to also tell them when things are a problem with a game. I'm proud of the fact that (except HOI2 and Two Thrones, both of which I own) I've had an impact on at LEAST one feature in every game since EU2. The CK events engine was and is the best part of that game. The game itself is a buggy disaster that probably should have been delayed another year, and I've expressed that opinion several times as well. I'm also of the feeling that 1.05 should be the last patch for CK, and Pdox should accept defeat there and walk away, but they didn't seem receptive to that idea. :shrug:As far as your Spanish example... the triggers I would put in the Spanish Bankruptcy events seem to be the ones you want, but you call mine "a generic event" and you call yours "a better trigger". I've said it several times in this very thread: If Spain hadn't colonized the Americas, they wouldn't get the BK events. So, you agree with me. Wonderful.
It is? I always thought that Austria inherited Hungary because it did so IRL history, just as it inherited Burgundy and Bohemia in-game due to RL history.Smirfy said:The King of Hungary died in a specific year whether in our AAR's we have him dieing in combat or of the pox
Should the event have more thought? Yes I do think it should! But lets have a look at the model first because it is essentially a play balance event.
Tambourmajor said:It is? I always thought that Austria inherited Hungary because it did so IRL history, just as it inherited Burgundy and Bohemia in-game due to RL history.
Yes, but Austria only inherited Hungary because they were the "most likely candidate to keep the Turks from bordering Vienna". The Austrian inheritence of Hungary is one of the most statistically UNLIKELY events in all of world history.
In my very humble opinion, recreating Austria's dominance in this period should be one of the hardest historical paths to follow, and if the game engine is modelled well should be extremely difficult. After all, there was only one Hapsburg family. No one else was even their rival in size or influence in Europe, and every royal line in existance has a touch of their blood. Had Austria inherited Spain sooner, there would be a Hapsburg pretender to the thrones of Japan and China.
You just can't assume that level of political dominance should be the "normal" path, it should require some serious effort to do it.
I have to disagree there, not just in this specific case but also in general. There not being any form of inheritance means that the player has no way to emulate what the Habsburgs historically did, which was to wed. In EUIII this may be different but we just don't know that. Because of that there should be events that let the Habsburgs inherit their historical domain.Duuk said:In my very humble opinion, recreating Austria's dominance in this period should be one of the hardest historical paths to follow, and if the game engine is modelled well should be extremely difficult. After all, there was only one Hapsburg family. No one else was even their rival in size or influence in Europe, and every royal line in existance has a touch of their blood. Had Austria inherited Spain sooner, there would be a Hapsburg pretender to the thrones of Japan and China.
In general, because some events are so important for the timeline, Hungarian inheritance for example, i think that whatever their historical likelyhood they should be fairly likely to happen in the game. Especially when both states are under AI control. The AI being somewhat less competent at creating the historical situation on it's own.
After all, the Dutch revolt was not terribly likely to succeed, but we don't want to see AI Spain suppressing it in nearly every game do we? That would wreak havoc on the later timeline.
BtW: Shouldn't this thread be merged with the "Will be EU3 strongly event driven like EU2" thread. They seem to be going in the same direction at the moment, with the same people too.
Registered said:
2 points to that:
I personally think the Dutch revolt was all but certain to succeed, it just may have taken longer under certain conditions. Seeing Spain suppressing it once in a while would be fine, but mostly we need some good "ending the revolt" events that give even a Spain player the idea that the wisest course of action is to Let their People Go instead of either fighting it out or using the gamey "release vassal and wait" plan.
As far as the Hapsburgs... without seeing the EU3 engine yet, I have no idea what it's capable of, so I'm not going to speculate on how much will need to be event driven and how much the engine will be able to track as far as relationships between countries.
As far as merging the threads... funny you should mention that, as I was just thinking that would be a good idea.
Duuk said:
I partially disagree. It is more elegant, it is also overcomplex. Simplicity has a quality all of its own.
stnylan said:
Axis and Allies is simple. Risk is simple. An events engine meant to model 350 years of world history might need to be slightly more complex
It's still text based, so it's still moddable. In addition, it's not overly complex once you get to reading it. The key would be to break the files up into many, many subfiles so the reading isn't clogged by viewing different events.