Determinism in EU4(and prior titles), and a message to Paradox Development Studio

[ImAdrian]

The problem is when things like "Netherlands declare independence from a large, 100% religious unity Burgundy" happen.

I mean.. you can go to war and conquer them back, no? There are many frustrating things that can happen and you need to respond to either mitigate the damage or accept loses and try to win them back later.

From a logical perspective, nothing stops a country from declaring independence... they can wake up tomorrow and say "we're free", but that doesn't mean you can't go and forcefully annex them.

 

[mechanical_Critter]

These options can be limited in the same way that you can't pick offensive ideas 4 times and have 80% siege ability all the time and/or 4x administrative to have 100% reduced core cost. Or they could be unlocked by comparatively difficult accomplishments to make the tradeoff of delaying for them less attractive until it's an interesting choice.

Such a model would have to avoid NIs like "female adviser chance", or allow players to choose among earned NIs. There isn't much point if you don't have agency. That said, your actions *are* your choices, so it's not true that such a model would prevent player choices. If it were well balanced (which I don't anticipate seeing in EU 4), you might even alter actions situationally to get desired NIs.

I think it's all well and good until AI comes into play, because either they will be incapable of completing objectives (maybe barring the easy ones) or they will be incapable of taking bonuses that meshes with one another :l

 

[master_kong]

It's not that they CAN'T, but we already have Crusader Kings. EU 4 has a different identity than CK 2.

I meant that they can't make a decent one out of it. Otherwise, of course they can.

 

[Lightwell]

None of this seems wrong, but it doesn't change my point. I don't believe that the Africans who sold slaves had "no idea what would happen to them" for very long after those transactions started.

I didn't claim that they didn't know what happened. I said that they had no source of objective morality. The Europeans had the Christian faith to show them what to do and what not to do, and they still chose to participate.

The traders knew their fates too. Nobody involved in this process gets to smokescreen reduced responsibility for it. Not the buyers in America, not the people who transported, not the sellers.

To this day, Africans descended from slave traders are harassed and attacked, sometimes even killed. There's no "smokescreen" involved on our side. We condemn the actions of the slavers, the buyers, and the middlemen.

Also, to be clear, one of the kings of Kongo sailed out to Sao Tome, saw what life was like there, and tried to intervene for the sake of the enslaved, condemning slavery as an institution and (unsuccessfully) attempting to limit it.

To get back to the point:Chattel slavery is completely different than slavery (oftentimes indentured servitude) within Africa, and both became more prominent as a result of Europeans coming in to buy young bodies, so Europeans not discovering the Americas and wanting to start the plantation system in the first place would definitely be ideal from the perspective of those enslaved.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I didn't claim that they didn't know what happened. I said that they had no source of objective morality.

Objective morality is nonsense in the first place, and operating under that doesn't help or condemn bad actions. Things people do don't become worse or better because they think those things are worse or better.

Also, to be clear, one of the kings of Kongo sailed out to Sao Tome, saw what life was like there, and tried to intervene for the sake of the enslaved, condemning slavery as an institution and (unsuccessfully) attempting to limit it.

A fair amount of people throughout the world condemned it, including Europeans. The people engaging in it mostly rationalized it away, giving into the allure of $$$. Or they were numb enough to atrocity to not care in some cases.

To get back to the point:Chattel slavery is completely different than slavery (oftentimes indentured servitude) within Africa, and both became more prominent as a result of Europeans coming in to buy young bodies, so Europeans not discovering the Americas and wanting to start the plantation system in the first place would definitely be ideal from the perspective of those enslaved.

True, just from a strict suppy:demand perspective even.

I think it's all well and good until AI comes into play, because either they will be incapable of completing objectives (maybe barring the easy ones) or they will be incapable of taking bonuses that meshes with one another :l

TBH it's not very different from status quo, where many AI have bad ideas forever no matter what. Whether this is defined in 1444 or defined by poor AI play doesn't change it from perspective of AI. And some AI will luck into at least some useful stuff just on sheer # of TAGs.

 

[Lightwell]

Objective morality is nonsense in the first place, and operating under that doesn't help or condemn bad actions.

It was enough to get the Pope to ban the enslavement of Native Americans.

Things people do don't become worse or better because they think those things are worse or better.

You just swapped over to refuting subjective morality.

A fair amount of people throughout the world condemned it, including Europeans. The people engaging in it mostly rationalized it away, giving into the allure of $$$. Or they were numb enough to atrocity to not care in some cases.

The terms "Africans" and "Europeans" likely aren't sufficient to explain the roles of the people involved. You wouldn't blame the Poles, Bambara, Romanians, or Kru for the Atlantic slave trade. It was between certain nations that this trade happened.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You just swapped over to refuting subjective morality.

Not exactly. If I woke up tomorrow and believed that destroying the world is a good thing, that doesn't make it a good thing (it doesn't follow that it is actually a good thing even constrained to my own theoretical perspective). Especially if it isn't consistent with my other preferences, such as enjoying cereal or something.

This can get confusing, because "good" and "bad" themselves require more context than most words to carry any meaning. "Good" from whose perspective? If we first create a utility function/means of valuing something, we can then conclude that said thing is good or bad in relation to the utility function. If I want to enjoy cereal many mornings in the future, it's a bad idea to destroy the world.

The universe doesn't give a crap about slavery, but overwhelmingly prevailing human utility functions do care, and it's a bad thing in that context.

The terms "Africans" and "Europeans" likely aren't sufficient to explain the roles of the people involved. You wouldn't blame the Poles, Bambara, Romanians, or Kru for the Atlantic slave trade. It was between certain nations that this trade happened.

Sure, and people deep in Central Africa similarly had either no involvement or almost no involvement in the slave trade discussed too. Eastern Europeans were in some cases more likely to be victims of slave trade rather than perpetrators. And non-chattel slavery elsewhere in the world was still pretty bad. "Less bad" is an improvement, but not necessarily a comforting one.

 

[Lightwell]

Not exactly. If I woke up tomorrow and believed that destroying the world is a good thing, that doesn't make it a good thing (it doesn't follow that it is actually a good thing even constrained to my own theoretical perspective). Especially if it isn't consistent with my other preferences, such as enjoying cereal or something.

This can get confusing, because "good" and "bad" themselves require more context than most words to carry any meaning. "Good" from whose perspective? If we first create a utility function/means of valuing something, we can then conclude that said thing is good or bad in relation to the utility function. If I want to enjoy cereal many mornings in the future, it's a bad idea to destroy the world.

The universe doesn't give a crap about slavery, but overwhelmingly prevailing human utility functions do care, and it's a bad thing in that context.

All of that is subjective morality. It's not as wishy-washy as some believers in it get, but none of that was objective.

Sure, and people deep in Central Africa similarly had either no involvement or almost no involvement in the slave trade discussed too. Eastern Europeans were in some cases more likely to be victims of slave trade rather than perpetrators. And non-chattel slavery elsewhere in the world was still pretty bad. "Less bad" is an improvement, but not necessarily a comforting one.

It is if it also comes with "Less common".

 

[love sweden]

I disagree on national ideas, it makes nations actually unique unlike games like VIC2 or HOI4 where the only differen beetwen Britain and Brazil is the geographic location, otherwise both will play exactly the same in singleplayer. Although national ideas do fail in a sense that if your nation has bad ideas you can basically pretend like you don´t have any ideas in the first place.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

All of that is subjective morality. It's not as wishy-washy as some believers in it get, but none of that was objective.

Correct, my intention is to refute objective morality, not to refute subjective morality .

But also to imply that even under subjective morality, slavery is still (very) bad under reasonable value systems and thus refusing to downplay the role of those who captured slaves for sale.

I disagree on national ideas, it makes nations actually unique unlike games like VIC2 or HOI4 where the only differen beetwen Britain and Brazil is the geographic location, otherwise both will play exactly the same in singleplayer.

And the choices these nations make. And the quality of their advisers. And the ripple effects of having different technologies and research slots available at the start. And ideology and faction alignment. But sure, aside from that they're basically the same!

 

[Lightwell]

But also to imply that even under subjective morality, slavery is still (very) bad under reasonable value systems and thus refusing to downplay the role of those who captured slaves for sale.

I'm not going to pursue this further.

 

[BaronIronmaggot]

I would like to see the mission trees bound together with national ideas. The national ideas should be the reward of completing mission trees which correlate with each other thematically. In other words, National Ideas should be the result of doing stuff and then getting better at those things - past initiatives leaving a lasting legacy on the nation. Say the English should complete a small mission tree in, say, the Caribbean which involves trade conflicts and protecting trade with lightships culminating in England gaining a foothold in Caribbean trade. Then the reward of the completed mission tree would be the "Royal Merchant Navy" idea.

 

[Lightwell]

I would like to see the mission trees bound together with national ideas. The national ideas should be the reward of completing mission trees which correlate with each other thematically. In other words, National Ideas should be the result of doing stuff and then getting better at those things - past initiatives leaving a lasting legacy on the nation. Say the English should complete a small mission tree in, say, the Caribbean which involves trade conflicts and protecting trade with lightships culminating in England gaining a foothold in Caribbean trade. Then the reward of the completed mission tree would be the "Royal Merchant Navy" idea.

Alright? But doesn't that mean crafting mission trees for every National Idea set and Group National idea set?

 

[Vulkandrache]

Alright? But doesn't that mean crafting mission trees for every National Idea set and Group National idea set?

Well, thats about what i would expect from a DLC with mission trees as the main selling point.
We still have the majority of nations without a unique one.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

@Shinkuro Yukinari

Personally, I think that PDS have got the balance about right in EU4, which is why this forum is no longer flooded with debates between the historical accuracy crowd (EU2 determinists) and the gameplay crowd (EU3 flexibilists).

There are two ways this balance has been achieved.

Firstly (and rather simply), there are still many, many scripted events, but PDS have become much better at event triggers. Those grand historical moments still occur - but only when the background game conditions have been met.

Secondly, EU4 has a number of underlying game rules that ebb and flow into the game as time progresses. Religious rules are governed by Ages. They in turn influence the HRE rule system. Colonization is governed by the adoption of certain ideas, and the colonization in turn leads to the gradual adoption of global trade. Technology spread (and lag) is influenced via institutions. All of these are underlying game mechanics intended to mirror the broad sweep of history, without making it predetermined.

PDS has become remarkably good at these underlying mechanics (especially given just how difficult it is to create underlying mechanics that then reflect into a simulacrum of history. (you can get a sense of how important those mechanics by playing Imperator: Rome v1.0.... Imperator on release was something like EU4 stripped of underlying mechanics... and it was very bland as a result).

 

[Josar]

I actually really like national ideas, and mission trees. They help make every country feel unique, even when I use most of the same idea groups each time.

The reason ottomans expand so much is not so much related to their idea groups but to their massive advantage their infantry tech groups belongs to early game. Ottoman armies can beat Western armies twice their size.

 

[WeissRaben]

Calm down buddy, I didn't insult people, I insulted the idea of saying French and English navy prowess were on par. I'm not speaking my native tongue but I can still see you're twisting my word.

Furthermore, when I say "NI are a way to illustrate a nation's main whereabouts and achievements in history" I'm talking about real history, not sci-fi EU4 where England is landlocked for 200 years. It is very coherent when you see it, like I said, as a way to illustrate or reflect (I don't know which word suits you best) a country's history / achievement.

As of 1444? They absolutely were. England was primarily a land-focused nation, tradition that had been derived from the Normans and honed continuously by having to fight on the continent. In fact, the idea of the Wooden Walls didn't even show up immediately after retreating to the British Isles; only after Scotland had been defanged, and any non-naval threat removed from the games, England started being focused on its navy first and foremost.

So you don't really need something absurd like landlocked England, to get NIs that make no sense (though it is a particularly egregious example): even winning the HYW, or just forcing a stalemate, would lock England into needing a strong, competent army over a costly navy. And thus you don't see a naval tradition strengthened through centuries, but rather the continuation of the solid usage of yeomen as an early form of semi-professional army.

 

[fr-rein]

I am divided in issue. While determinism is bad I do feel like removing it like in Imperator:Rome is wrong as well.

But well, I will take this opportunity to write about Ukraine and Cossacks.

Why that event isn't deterministic? Why rise of Holland, Prussia and Reformation are deterministic and rise of Cossacks isn't (it is sold to us for money too)? Why they choose this event to be not deterministic and choose Holland to be one? Why Khmelnytsky Rebellion is ignored while Dutch Revolt isn't?

The arbitrary attitude is really what makes me annoyed most about deterministic attitude and why I think it should not be applied extensively. It is not about Cossacks, but pretty much about a lot other big events which are left out.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The arbitrary attitude is really what makes me annoyed most about deterministic attitude and why I think it should not be applied extensively. It is not about Cossacks, but pretty much about a lot other big events which are left out.

I don't think you can avoid making "determinism by fate" w/o making some kind of arbitrary cutoff, which is why that kind of determinism is bad in gaming. Though I recall Pdox saying they intend to rework the dutch revolts also, so maybe that will improve since right now some of the Netherlands independence situations are also egregious.

 

[Lightwell]

Well, thats about what i would expect from a DLC with mission trees as the main selling point.
We still have the majority of nations without a unique one.

There are 800 tags, dude.