Conquest of minor countries

[Doomdark]

Jochen, I must say that I am of a radically different opinion. I don't think that everything that happened in history was somehow _fated_ to happen. I can't see why the 30 Years War should have to occur more than a hundred years after _game_ history has branched off from _real_ history.

Cromwell should not instigate a civil war because it is fated to happen, but because the people (parliament) are unhappy with the king. The wise player would make sure this never happened.

The Netherlands would revolt against Spain due to crushing taxes and a strong cultural identity, but a wise Spanish monarch would be able assimilate them better.

Etc, etc.

Hardwiring historical events into the game should only be done if they are clearly outside the parameters of the simulation. Like for example the Reformation and the Treaty of Tordesillas.

However - and this is very important - a good simulation should make it very hard to stray _too_ far from the historically possible. For example, the industrial revolution could not possibly happen before the late 17th century (in fact, the whole concept of focused, state controlled research in this era is shaky).

A straight conversion of the BG to the computer would be really stupid. Why not take advantage of the enormous number crunching capability of a computer to construct a _much_ better simulation?

 

[Doomdark]

Marc,

What you're saying might very well be true. Every empire in history has been divided in the end, losing control over most conquered nations and even its own colonies.

Yet, the period that the game covers is a golden age of empire building (as opposed to the 20th century) when it was easier to subdue nations for a number of reasons (the old nobility could remain in control, people did not care as much about nationality, etc). EU would simply not be any fun if annexation was impossible.

I think that it should be possible to keep any nation in EU annexed for the duration of the game, although it should be very difficult. By keeping stability high and maintaining a strong army all uprisings should be possible to quell or prevent.

Furthermore, I don't see why the Dutch rebellion should have to be scripted while for example the Irish and the Prussian ones are not. Don't get me wrong; all annexed nations should strive to rebel if the ruling empire is plagued by instability or a weak army. Thus a Dutch rebellion should be very _likely_ whenever Spain is weakened.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

Akagi, Marc,

Railroaded games might have a certain charm - especially in boardgame form, but I personally am vastly in favor of more realistic simulations. As I've stated previously, computers are more than able to handle the complex environment necessary to discard silly boardgame abstractions.

If I want to play a boardgame, I play a boardgame; gathered with my friends around a table over a weekend, drinking coke and stuffing myself with greasy snacks. And that is fine, but it is not what I expect of a computer game, and it does not suffice for a computer game.

Look at the CG conversions of Advanced Civilization, Axis & Allies, Risk, etc etc. They all suck, no matter how slick the interface is. Compared to games like Master of Orion, Civilization and SMAC they are all hopelessly obsolete.

Would you truly like a straight BG conversion? Why should you ever want to stick with 'After 1550, Swedish infantry becomes veteran', when you have a dynamic model where troops fight and gain experience all the time? Why would you want to see 'Random event: 30 Years War', when every involved nation desires peace?

Some of the BG rules are completely inexplicable... Why on God's green earth would only Russia and Turkey be able to annex minors!? England annexed Ireland, Wales and Scotland on and off over the centuries. Brandenburg/Prussia annexed several minor nations. Denmark annexed Sweden. Sweden and Poland divided the Teutonic Order. Where is the Hansa today? Venice? The list goes on and on.

In a good computer game the players are in command of all aspects covered by the simulation. If the Swedish player has somehow managed (through skilled diplomacy and military maneuvering) to take all of Denmark's provinces by force then Denmark is annexed. Amen.

>It seems to me that if annexation is to remain an option the side-effects in increased tension with other great powers, rebellions, assimilation difficulties and so forth must be increased A LOT

Here we agree. The simulation must be complex enough to discourage behaviour that deviates too far from the plausible...

Wait! 'Random Event: Swedish-Danish War'. What a shame. We had such friendly relations, but now the game has declared war for me. Joy, oh joy.

Marc, do you really prefer 'Random Event: Holland breaks free from Spain' to a rebellion based on a set of variables that mirror reality in a moderately complex fashion?

Please, please do not encourage Paradox to walk down that dismal road.

 

[Doomdark]

Right-o.

It is too late to make fundamental changes at this late stage. I for one am very happy with the decision to discard the worst abstractions of the boardgame. Let us hope that random 'War' events do not make it into the game. (At least I hope they don't.)

If you wanted to re-enact historical events like the 30 Years War you could easily do so in a special scenario, but to have it hardwired into the grand campaign is ridiculous.

I will gladly defer to your knowledge of the Dutch rebellion. To be sure it was very likely to happen... But I still think it could have failed, even after it had begun. A brutal and cruel tyrant could have crushed uprising after uprising, executing thousands of rich burghers and nobles, burning down recalcitrant cities and reducing the region to a smoldering ruin. Not likely, granted, but certainly within the parameters of a global wargame.

Such behaviour should of course be discouraged by dramatic drops in diplomatic relations, and by sparking uprisings elsewhere in the realm...

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

Hmm, as much as I would like to believe that every nation can gain freedom from oppression through general revolt, reality disproves that dream.

>Actually, i believe that the cruel, repressive way to deal with uprising almost always fails....

A very politically correct - very Disney - opinion gained from watching too many Hollywood movies. In fact, I would say that brutal measures most often succeed if the empire as a whole is still strong. In modern times, I point to the various quelled uprisings in the Soviet satellites, Tibet, and China. In ancient times, the Roman Empire surpressed countless revolts while it was still sound at the core. Strong Empires do not crumble simply due to revolts, but due to failing economies, poor government and outer threats.

My own beloved Sweden saw several uprisings (although not separatist) in the time frame covered by EU and they were all successfully crushed.

Regarding EU, I think it is a safe bet that that a wise Spanish player starting out in 1492 should be quite able to prevent or surpress any separatist movement in the Netherlands by the 1570s. If not, the whole game becomes an exercise in futility.

Remember the time frame here folks; we are talking centuries of player manipulation...

 

[Doomdark]

Marc,

I think we're losing hold of the thread, so to speak.

Let us see if we can agree on these two points at least:

At the core, EU is an empire building game. For such a game to be fun and historically accurate, you have to be allowed conquest of minor nations. It would be extremely silly to conquer all but one province of a minor and be left with an invincible single-territory nation. In fact, this would mean that our history could never happen in the game, since for example the Hansa and the Teutonic Order would be eternal.

If even one of the players makes a decision that deviates from history all bets are off. I.e. you can not be absolutely sure there will ever be a 30 years war, a British civil war, Dutch independence, etc. Would it be any kind of fun if the Spanish player knew that he would lose the Netherlands around 1579 and there was nothing he could do about it? What about the United States? Was it fated to succeed in its struggle for independence? I think not. For example, England could have moved its capital to Philadelphia in, say, 1740. Suppose England had never even colonized North America in the first place. In EU it could have been colonized by for example the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and France... Would the US still rise in the form we know today? It is absurd to think so.

In conclusion, it is neither fun nor realistic to hardwire these types of events into the game, and conquest of minor nations is a must.

Oh, and I would be very careful about calling Vietnam a part of an American Empire.

[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 07-05-2000).]

 

[Johan]

I think I have to have reply to this thread.

* I prefer to play the game with conquest of minors on. However, it is an option that you can turn on or off at the start of the game.

* We have tried to make the game both historical and open-ended. There are no 'war'-events as in the board game. The only events that are in the game are such as Reformation and Tordesillas Treaty.

/Johan

 

[Doomdark]

Johan,

I am certain that you have made the correct design decision in not adhering too strictly to the board game rules. This game will be a dream come true for me and for many others.

Four salutes for Paradox:

BOOOM, BOOOM, BOOOM, BOOOOOOOOM!!!