Determinism in EUIV

[maxirage]

According to the developer diaries there are tons of mechanics with exclusivity to specific countries: dynamic events, missions, decisions, and now even national ideas. This is very similar to what was done in EUIII and every other pre-CKII game.

It makes me feel disappointed. I didn't enjoy the system where Castille gets specific awesome bonuses just because it's called "Castille", or christian countries grow more powerful than others ones simply because they're christian. What worked best, in my opinion, is the CKII system where your power is based only on the land you own and how it is organized. The King of England didn't get special bonuses simply for being King of England, so you could jump in and play and not have to learn the country specific events and mechanics in order to play effectively.

Those are just my thoughts. I'd enjoy it more if it didn't focus on determinism so much.

 

[unmerged(498175)]

According to the developer diaries there are tons of mechanics with exclusivity to specific countries: dynamic events, missions, decisions, and now even national ideas. This is very similar to what was done in EUIII and every other pre-CKII game.

It makes me feel disappointed. I didn't enjoy the system where Castille gets specific awesome bonuses just because it's called "Castille", or christian countries grow more powerful than others ones simply because they're christian. What worked best, in my opinion, is the CKII system where your power is based only on the land you own and how it is organized. The King of England didn't get special bonuses simply for being King of England, so you could jump in and play and not have to learn the country specific events and mechanics in order to play effectively.

Those are just my thoughts. I'd enjoy it more if it didn't focus on determinism so much.

Indeed, I agree. But there's also that there's soo many variables that made them better so it's easier to just abstract it by giving them arbitrary bonuses.

 

[Sir Iain]

I never got why a country shouldn't get anything specific, when cultures or provinces could get them.
Unless everything that consitutes a country gets it's own system (Like titles, laws, coronation symbolism and previous history) I dodn't see why some stuff shouldn't be tied to TAGs.

 

[Ashantai]

In EU3 every country played pretty much the same. Castille was pretty much like France, to actually play. They have different starting conditions, but there was nothing about France that made it feel like...France.

It's like nothing before 1399 was taken into account, and you could do what you want. I prefer it this way.

After all, you can choose to act differently still. The dynamic events only happen in a set of circumstances you don't need to let happen.

 

[maxirage]

In EU3 every country played pretty much the same.

No they didn't. Some countries got enormous insurmountable advantages. For example, every non-christian nation is crippled by their state religion being completely inferior to Catholisim, and they always stay so because changing state religion is borderline a glitch. England gets an incredibly powerful mission which gives them cores on half of France. Portugal always has a front row seat to colonization due to its missions. And new world natives are almost unplayable.

 

[BrunoDerKaiser]

No they didn't. Some countries got enormous insurmountable advantages. For example, every non-christian nation is crippled by their state religion being completely inferior to Catholisim, and they always stay so because changing state religion is borderline a glitch. England gets an incredibly powerful mission which gives them cores on half of France. Portugal always has a front row seat to colonization due to its missions. And new world natives are almost unplayable.

Yes. It is called "History" only that history has more complex mechanics. Natives are made to be bred and slaughtered when the euro's come.

 

[Evie HJ]

Because that's a totally historical representation of what actually happened everywhere. (lol)

The Natives did their fair share of slaughtering, several tribes and group held their own until the end of the game, and in some regions of the world the parts of Africa the Euros tried to get come to mind) the native actually won.

Some were conquered quickly and easily. Many weren't.

So...no.

 

[maxirage]

Also, I really don't see how a country's history, cultural values, or any specifics of that kind matter when it comes to strength. The only thing that matters is how the state functions at the present time. Looking at how Paradox's games work, in the end, only three things matter:

1) Amount of land controlled
2) Quality of land controlled
3) How efficiently the land is controlled (along with technology)

For example, England is naturally a naval superpower simply due to the amount of coastline it owns; There is no need for specific events and modifiers necessary to abstract their naval tradition. France is an army superpower due to the large amount of rich land they possess. China, although possessing a lot of rich land, can't make as effective use of it, so it is weaker than expected. Unique tag-based modifiers don't create these situations, so I think they should be completely remove d in this context.

I'd be fine if there were purely aesthetic events, like in CKII. Those only existed to give some flavor to different cultures without effecting actual gameplay. The unique modifier stuff I just find distasteful by quantifying the worth of people's culture and heritage. It reminds me of colonial Europeans believing their cultures and societies are innately superior to everyone else's, using it as a justification for imperialism. Europe's success had nothing to do with its culture in reality, of course; it was due to Europe's geography.

 

[Wallain]

I never got why a country shouldn't get anything specific, when cultures or provinces could get them.
Unless everything that consitutes a country gets it's own system (Like titles, laws, coronation symbolism and previous history) I dodn't see why some stuff shouldn't be tied to TAGs.

Because determinism is just a bad substitute for proper mechanics.

 

[Evie HJ]

You forgot "but necessary" somewhere in there.

Proper mechanics to cover everything about the game is never going to happen, and would drive complexity through the roof.

 

[vertinox]

Yes. It is called "History" only that history has more complex mechanics. Natives are made to be bred and slaughtered when the euro's come.

There were Native American nations that survived the games timeline in North America.

Simply walking into North America with stacks of 30,000 troops from Europe should not be possible and is not plausible or historical.

Back to the main topic, the game should be somewhat historical with plausible outcomes.

It shouldn't be 100% the same each time.

Castille should tend to form Spain and Moscowvy should tend to form Russia but it shouldn't happen 10 out of 10 times playing the game. It should be a unique game each time you play.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

You forgot "but necessary" somewhere in there.

Proper mechanics to cover everything about the game is never going to happen, and would drive complexity through the roof.

It works for CK2, which empirically proved that it is not necessary.

I would hope for devs to work on such mechanics, rather than automatically dismiss them as unachievable 'holy grail'.

 

[Jia Xu]

It makes me feel disappointed. I didn't enjoy the system where Castille gets specific awesome bonuses just because it's called "Castille", or christian countries grow more powerful than others ones simply because they're christian.

I'm going to have to disagree with you 100%, chief. Country specific bonuses are what allow the AIs to keep the game interesting and also allow them some chance at actually being competitive within the game. If Portugal didn't have special bonuses, it would never be a colonial power. Without special bonuses, EU4 would become the non-stop blobbing game that EU3 and especially CK2 was. Without special bonuses, whoever fields the bigger army is going to blob all over the map. In EU3, France can have a bigger army than Prussia and still lose because of Prussia's special decision which gives it a 20% bonus to discipline. If you like games where you just fight, conquer, and then fight some more, that's fine. Just delete all of the event, decision, and mission files from your copy of EU4. Now you can recreate the CK2 blobbing experience you want and everyone wins!

 

[unmerged(63836)]

I'm going to have to disagree with you 100%, chief. Country specific bonuses are what allow the AIs to keep the game interesting and also allow them some chance at actually being competitive within the game. If Portugal didn't have special bonuses, it would never be a colonial power. Without special bonuses, EU4 would become the non-stop blobbing game that EU3 and especially CK2 was. Without special bonuses, whoever fields the bigger army is going to blob all over the map. In EU3, France can have a bigger army than Prussia and still lose because of Prussia's special decision which gives it a 20% bonus to discipline. If you like games where you just fight, conquer, and then fight some more, that's fine. Just delete all of the event, decision, and mission files from your copy of EU4. Now you can recreate the CK2 blobbing experience you want and everyone wins!

Interesting and competitive? Player's insight into how AI would develop would make game more predictable, repetitive and less challenging. New mechanics could prevent blobbing - such bonuses would just promote historical blobbing.

 

[Jia Xu]

Interesting and competitive? Player's insight into how AI would develop would make game more predictable, repetitive and less challenging. New mechanics could prevent blobbing - such bonuses would just promote historical blobbing.

How are historical borders "blobbing" exactly? Blobbing doesn't refer to historical borders. Blobbing refers to ahistorical borders like In Nomine France which would regularly conquer Germany specifically because the Empire did not have any special bonuses. Then the Emperor was given giant manpower and force limits bonuses, and suddenly it was possible for the Empire to defend itself. No, no, what you're saying doesn't match up to what actually happened in EU3 at all.

 

[Dafool]

It works for CK2, which empirically proved that it is not necessary.

I would hope for devs to work on such mechanics, rather than automatically dismiss them as unachievable 'holy grail'.

First, CK2 does have some basic historic content. Second, CK is a series about characters, their personalities, and their interactions. EU is a series about nations and how they change over centuries due to worldwide exploration, enormous technological change, and massive political shifts. There is a tremendous difference between representing fictional characters and representing a global sandbox.

 

[Jia Xu]

The funny thing is that if there were more special bonuses in CK2, it would be a much more balanced game. Because every country is mostly the same in CK2, AI Byzantium ends up being eaten by the Fatimids and/or Seljuks in pretty much every game. If Byzantium had special defensive bonuses, it would have a much better chance of being somewhat in tact by the end of the 12th century. Because there are no such bonuses in CK2, the Fatimids conquer Anatolia if the Seljuks don't beat them to it, and then they invade Greece with minimal resistance.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

How are historical borders "blobbing" exactly? Blobbing doesn't refer to historical borders. Blobbing refers to ahistorical borders like In Nomine France which would regularly conquer Germany specifically because the Empire did not have any special bonuses. Then the Emperor was given giant manpower and force limits bonuses, and suddenly it was possible for the Empire to defend itself. No, no, what you're saying doesn't match up to what actually happened in EU3 at all.

To have historical borders, you would have to eliminate gameplay almost entirely.

I'm not talking about EU3. I'm talking about new mechanics (some were presented by the devs), that would prevent unrealistic blobbing. Unrealistic. Without these mechanics, and with these bonuses only, you would still get ridiculous blobbing but by selected number of countries instead of random ones. Country specific stuff brings no realism to the table after 50-100 years of gameplay, when it loses all context and basis in game's reality.

@Dafool - not going to smash my head against the wall trying to 'discuss' with you again

 

[Jia Xu]

To have historical borders, you would have to eliminate gameplay almost entirely.

Blatantly false. See: Victoria II.

I'm not talking about EU3. I'm talking about new mechanics (some were presented by the devs), that would prevent unrealistic blobbing. Unrealistic. Without these mechanics, and with these bonuses only, you would still get ridiculous blobbing but by selected number of countries instead of random ones. Country specific stuff brings no realism to the table after 50-100 years of gameplay, when it loses all context and basis in game's reality.

If you're not talking about EU3 (a wise move considering EU3 proves you wrong), then what are you complaining about exactly? The unrealistic blobbing in EU4 which you only assume exists because you haven't played it? Please tell me you're not complaining about bonuses in EU4 alone because that would be ridiculous given that you know absolutely nothing about how a game of EU4 will play out due to these bonuses. Not a thing.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Blatantly false. See: Victoria II.

WTF? See random map in some 'Post your Victoria 2 Empire' threads on this forum.

If you're not talking about EU3 (a wise move considering EU3 proves you wrong), then what are you complaining about exactly? The unrealistic blobbing in EU4 which you only assume exists because you haven't played it? Please tell me you're not complaining about bonuses in EU4 alone because that would be ridiculous given that you know absolutely nothing about how a game of EU4 will play out due to these bonuses. Not a thing.

Ehhhh......You didn't get it. I wrote that country specific stuff would not prevent blobbing or make the game more realistic. I also wrote that new mechanics would, and some are introduced in EU4. I didn't write how EU4 would be like - just that deterministic stuff is unnecessary. Is that clear enough? Did a message got through? English is not my primary language, so maybe that's making you confused?