Events should not be the way to make the game progress historically. I don't like it when I'm trying to play the game ahistorically and suddenly some event comes and tells me I'm playing wrong and forces me to be historical.
Developer Diary 3 – Design Philosophy
- Thread starter King
- 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.
Why should the AI pick its historical area of interest rather than the best possible action?
>a small increase in CON there is not going to make or break your game
CON? I always go with the dual weilding DEX monkey in my RPGs....I hope I'm not going to be forced down the tank or die roadmap...
CON? I always go with the dual weilding DEX monkey in my RPGs....I hope I'm not going to be forced down the tank or die roadmap...
I never got into Vicky, but each of these diaries is making me more and more interested in V2. Can't wait 
As for the big argument in this thread, I'm kinda in the middle. I do find the pure sandbox of vanilla EU3 a bit too much, as often it isn't really even plausible, but at the same time, I don't really enjoy being heavily pressured to remain historical. I'd say MMP2 is pretty close to the kinda balance between the two which I enjoy. It doesn't stick rigidly to history, but generally encourages losely historical outcomes and the end results are usually plausible.
A good example of how I like things in MM would be the Burgundian succession - in a pure historical setup, the last duke would die withourt an heir in 1477 (assuming my memory for dates holds) and his kingdom would be split up. What MMP2 does instead is have an event that I believe fires if Burgundy goes into a Regency Coucil (the closest EU3 currently has to succesion problems) around this time period, that will usually result in the country being dissolved and divided up (not certain on the condition, but it's something like this). It doesn't force the historical outcome onto you, but if a situation which resembles history occurs, than the historical outcome is likely (though not certain, as occasionally, in this event, Burgundy can remain, albeit at cost to the nation (stab IIRC), which adds a little extra variety to the game). If however, the historical situation never arises, then the game just goes on without forcing anything.
As for the big argument in this thread, I'm kinda in the middle. I do find the pure sandbox of vanilla EU3 a bit too much, as often it isn't really even plausible, but at the same time, I don't really enjoy being heavily pressured to remain historical. I'd say MMP2 is pretty close to the kinda balance between the two which I enjoy. It doesn't stick rigidly to history, but generally encourages losely historical outcomes and the end results are usually plausible.
A good example of how I like things in MM would be the Burgundian succession - in a pure historical setup, the last duke would die withourt an heir in 1477 (assuming my memory for dates holds) and his kingdom would be split up. What MMP2 does instead is have an event that I believe fires if Burgundy goes into a Regency Coucil (the closest EU3 currently has to succesion problems) around this time period, that will usually result in the country being dissolved and divided up (not certain on the condition, but it's something like this). It doesn't force the historical outcome onto you, but if a situation which resembles history occurs, than the historical outcome is likely (though not certain, as occasionally, in this event, Burgundy can remain, albeit at cost to the nation (stab IIRC), which adds a little extra variety to the game). If however, the historical situation never arises, then the game just goes on without forcing anything.
They're not mutually exclusive. I.e. I would like France and Prussia to be generally antagonistic, but to only have a tendency for that - so you'd often see them clash, but not always, and in a small percentage of all games played they'd also be best buddies and allies. Same goes for colonization. Seeing Russia colonize chunks of Africa will kill the feeling of immersion for me in an instant.
As historical area of interest are 90% of the time the best possible action.
If it's not in the game than the game is lacking in ability to project reality.
If the game is unable to create the fundamental basis of history (which I am the first one to agree is difficult) than that need to be fixed as to avoid blandness and everything that was bad with EU3 vanilla.
The solution to this was in EU3 to add missions and historical sphere of interest (I have not myself tried the expansions as of an general outcry against EU3 and as of lack of time, though I have heard that the expansions made EU3 into one of the better Paradox games as of said historical sphere of interests).
If the game can't create the dynamics needed for said time, than you need to stuff it down into the AI's throats as to avoid the problems that otherwise arise.
At the discussion of Opium wars etc, I'd just say that the main problem there is how to make it "special". It's not an war of conquest and an war that sprung out as of trade and political basis.
How will the engine be able to with any kind of realism be able to simulate such an event in both in how the AI handles the situation and how such event fire while still avoid having it happen in many ahistorical and (if applying historical realism or historical dynamic) idiotic places.
As an programmer I know this is extremely difficult to do and such I'd consider stuffing such events down an AI's throat is better than trying to create an bland AI that going nuts all over the world.
And before commenting on earlier games, if you compare EU3 vanilla and EU2 vanilla and let the game play from the start til the end, there's more countries left as in history with more historically correct borders in EU2 than in EU3 vanilla. I can vouch for that a hundred times over.
Even if a province may end up with an strange owner during the centuries that pass in EU2 - we don't have an Burgundy taking over half of Europe.
Please tell me there will be an Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian War. Half of the fun in Victoria was preparing your nation for the inevitable clash of European powers in the 50's-70's, and then watching the game unfold differently each time after that.
What we see with the hungry-hungry-hippo AI in recent PI games is that the game becomes ahistorically straitjacketed instead. When was the last time you didn't see Denmark annex Hamburg in the first couple years of EU3, or Japan fail miserably in China in HOI3?
For the most part, the sandbox style works very well for EU3 because it's a long time period with plenty of different factors. But the HOI3 timeframe is too short, and the Victoria period is too distinct to not warrant a helping hand from historical events. Plus they're educational, immersive, and fun.
What we see with the hungry-hungry-hippo AI in recent PI games is that the game becomes ahistorically straitjacketed instead. When was the last time you didn't see Denmark annex Hamburg in the first couple years of EU3, or Japan fail miserably in China in HOI3?
For the most part, the sandbox style works very well for EU3 because it's a long time period with plenty of different factors. But the HOI3 timeframe is too short, and the Victoria period is too distinct to not warrant a helping hand from historical events. Plus they're educational, immersive, and fun.
my bet is that the salesfigures actually does lie, your old titles where great and attracted lots of people to your games, that alone sold hoi3 and eu3 because people have such high expectations from the previous titles and thereby buying your new titles regardless.
I agree that events in eu2 where to many and to much, but the events in vicky almost never limited the gameplay, you still had choices in most of the situations, the ai often took different routes via the event choices which made each game unpredictable. Events where action starters, they basicly guaranteed that fun and challenging things happened in the game, how boring wouldnt china and russia be without events? Also i just dont understand you guys who says events makes the game a history book, what about all the times russia blobbed into germany and crushed austria before 1900s? or italy formed by two sicilies? or japan capturing all of siberia? events ensure historic plausibility, which means realistic things that could have happened, i wouldnt say hoi3 does the same
Love the idea behind the auto pop promotion and I can see how that can better identify certain countries so that they are all less generic.
I'm a big "events" dude, so love the idea of the rebirth of country-specific "flavour" events, if I read that correctly.
I'm a big "events" dude, so love the idea of the rebirth of country-specific "flavour" events, if I read that correctly.
ok..someone get me on track here.
so there will be events like the Opium and Crimean wars, but they will not be bound by a specific date, or they will not be featured in the game at all(just regular wars with no historical names)?
so there will be events like the Opium and Crimean wars, but they will not be bound by a specific date, or they will not be featured in the game at all(just regular wars with no historical names)?
Last edited:
To put it very simple. I was a great fan of paradox games up until HOI2.
I was very thrilled about the relaease of EU3, but the reactions of many early buyers in the forums made me think twice before buying the game. When I finaly bought it with the complete pack, I was instantly turned down by its genericness (actually I wouldnt have bought it if I hadnt read up on the MagnaMundi Mod before reconsidering).
When HOI3 was announced I was equally thrilled, but I was forwarned that I might not enjoy it. So the only reason why I would buy HOI3 is if there is a mod sufficiently developed to adress the main problems of the game.
On a very simple line, and maybe I will be wrong about it in Victoria. The game mechanics of the clausewitz engine alone do not deliver a game experience I will be able to enjoy - and there seem to be quite a group of players that feel the same. Else there wouldnt be tens of thousands of Magna Mundi downloads, would there?
To put it very simply, I seriously doubt that paradox would have been able to afford developing vanilla EU3 and Magna Mundi, it would just have taken too much time (=too much money).
Good point. I don't think many people want a history book for a game. They do want one that is plausible however. No Finland invading Korea please.
any one?
Have you seen the decision screen on EU3? I'm guessing it will work in a similar fashion, i.e. there will be a set of criteria for you to declare the Opium War (as opposed to just attacking China), but you will be able to decide when to do it (but some of the criteria may be time-sensitive), and its not at all guaranteed at the countries that historically participated will join in.
so, unlike V1, an Opium War will happen instead of the Opium war, probably with special conditions for victory etc. at least thats how I hope it works, this is just idle speculation.
thank you. i get what you mean. i think it's better. more freedom, and wars don't have to be fought exactly the way they did. as long as "Opium war" or "Crimean war" event pops up, i am satisfied.
I have to agree on this. I don't buy any Paradox game now until a good mod is out (a la MMP), partly because without the mod I find the games generic and simplisticly easy - I remember my first EU3 IN game (had hardly ever played EU3 before, and not since its release) - as Venice I had unified Italy without even trying by 1440 or something, and the AI was doing the same sort of thing elsewhere.
As for HoI 3, there are some good looking mods going, but the biggest no no for me with the Clauswitz engine is the speed, and though the V2 map so far does look lovley, it looks like I am going to need a super computer to run it and I am too old and wise to pay £1000 for a new PC just to play one game
As for this events thing, it has worked out so well for Paradox that fans have remade EU2 and HoI2, and FTG looks great and seems to be doing quite well. Also, the furore on these forums every time this issue comes up seems to suggest something to me, though personaly I like both approaches, its just the 'open dynamic' direction really needs some hard work from the modding community, which means the game itself might not do well simply because there is not enough people making a mod - EU: Rome VV is a case in point.
Maybe Paradox should really look into getting well known modding groups involved in the games development so that an early mod can be released with the game. Though this might end up going down the path of paying for user made mods.
Don't want to be a party pooper, but I'm fairly sure they never stated that those 2 particular events will actually make it into Vicky 2. They mentioned critical things, like Germany unification (as decision-type event) and Menji's Restoration, but all discussion about Crimean/Opium Wars was mainly driven by common forum users. At some point the way of possible implementation was brought up, I commented that hard part is not starting those events, but proper ending (as for - war ends when certain political goal is achieved, not when conventional war exhastion or loss of provinces dicatates). King commented, that such thing can be managed with right game mechanics, which is sort of the lead that devs consider implemeneting such wars.
So they might make into game, or might not.
Maybe that is correct, but that will make me wait until their games went to the bargain bin before I buy them (thats about the time the good mods need to mature).
you keep saying this, and I will keep telling you it is false.
Your current sales figures have nothing to do with your new philosophy of sand box gameplay
You simply can't compare eu2, (first paradox game to use the event system which by the way was released a mere year after eu1 with exactly the same engine if I remember correctly. How did you honestly expected it to sell any better than eu1?)
to your new games which,
1. have much more market exposure (because guess what, you guys became known for those rich games that stayed within a reasonable distance to history and reality)
2. have flashy 3d graphics.
both of which attract average gamers looking for few hours of fun.
Do you honestly think they really won't buy your games because they don't turn into fantasy land after day 1?
Give me a break.