So with all this talk of backwards does that mean that autocratic countries are going to be penalised simply for not being democratic?
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.
Sounds really good. I do like that they want the player to have freedom to drive their country down any path of their choosing instead of forcing down some pre-determined route.
I just hope with the auto-promotion/less micromanagement that it won't be so hard to turn a country like Argentina into a world power - because it's being able to do something like that in Vicky which made it so fun for me. I really hope there won't be auto factory production!
I just hope with the auto-promotion/less micromanagement that it won't be so hard to turn a country like Argentina into a world power - because it's being able to do something like that in Vicky which made it so fun for me. I really hope there won't be auto factory production!
So unless you start in 1861, you're never going to see a American Civil War, and the game will end up as unhistorical and ludicrous as HOI3?
Count me out.
Count me out.
The POP promotion system sounds interesting. It seems to mirror something OHgamer mentioned a while ago too, and I agree with it. Looking good!
One possibility might be the fact that when Paradox made event-heavy games, the first thing that happened was a project to make more events..
So, since the community will make the event-laden versions no matter what, why should Paradox spend lots of paid time to do what modders will do for free?
Whereas sandboxed games.. I don't think I have ever seen a mod that attempted to simplify the game
(So generally it is probably better to try for the casual gamer, then they can come look for further challenges here..?)
So unless you start in 1861, you're never going to see a American Civil War, and the game will end up as unhistorical and ludicrous as HOI3?
Count me out.
No, it just means unless you start in 1861 the civil war is a possibility instead of some static event which you know will happen no matter what you do in your game.
I would like to see the country you lead go the way you want it but other countries to go historically unless you do anything to upset their path of history.
If youre Persia the american civil war should still happen no matter what, well unless you invade america or something crazy like that but chances are nothing persia could or would do would change the course of american or prussian history, so those nations would follow the road set out for them unless though Player action the world in the game diverges too far from history as we know it for those events to make sense.
And for the player every historical event should have an option or maybe a couple of options to dodge it, so that historical things are there but are not forced on you.
If youre Persia the american civil war should still happen no matter what, well unless you invade america or something crazy like that but chances are nothing persia could or would do would change the course of american or prussian history, so those nations would follow the road set out for them unless though Player action the world in the game diverges too far from history as we know it for those events to make sense.
And for the player every historical event should have an option or maybe a couple of options to dodge it, so that historical things are there but are not forced on you.
So unless you start in 1861, you're never going to see a American Civil War, and the game will end up as unhistorical and ludicrous as HOI3?
Count me out.
i don't think that is necessarily the case, since the Civil War could have broken out any time from about 1850 onwards, had the Compromise of 1850 failed, or Bleeding Kansas led to more radical interventions, or Republicanism gained power in the 1856 elections.
Basically you'll need a decision for the USA, saying that a rabidly anti-slavery party has won a plurality of the electoral vote, should its leader take power as president. Say yes, and push the slave states into rebellion, say no, and raise the risk of a potential northern rebellion.
and there you have your US Civil War
will it happen exactly in 1861. quite possibly not, perhaps as early as the early 1850s, perhaps as late as say the 1880s (or even longer??). Would depend on conditions in each game. But if the conditions in game generally parallel the macrohistorical conditions that contributed to the outbreak of the US civil war, then a civil war should have a very strong chance of erupting.
That's... just... not... how MM works. :/ It doesn't use events in anything like the same manner as the previous games. It's all about event pools instead of chains and systems instead of instances.
Are you sure you're thinking of the right mod?
How do you decide what affects other countries? Would Mexico's actions or Canada's actions affect the USA? How about the UK? And why not Prussia, there were immigrants of Prussian descent in the USA at the time, weren't there, don't you think they would be interested int eh goings-on in their former country?
depending on the country you play, that could be a very difficult thing to do.
Play France and make the Orleanist dynasty popular enough it avoids revolution in 1848. Does revolution then not break out in Austria, Germany, Italy? Was the rising in Paris in Feb 1848 simply the spark that lit a long-term fuse that would have gone off anyways had something else happened, or do you really need the fall of Louis-Philippe to make 1848 revolutions have context.
And if 1848 doesn't happen, should Italy and Germany ever unify? Was 1848 a catalyst that was vital for the eventual triumph of the Risorgimento and German Unification by further popularizing the idea of national unification, or was the macrohistorical trend moving in that direction already and 1848 just a process that accelerated the inevitable.
Or how about colonization. You play Belgium and decide not to encourage colonization in the Congo valley. Should that kill the Scramble for Africa, since that was the spark that lit the starters pistol, or would the other European powers have scrambled for African territory in any case. Do you need a Germany to have a meaningful Scramble for Africa? What if you play Germany and decide (as Bismarck initially believed) that colonies are a waste and thus don't get Germany invovled. Britain's decision to get involved in scramble in several parts of Africa arose directly from the decision by Bismarck to indeed get involved.
So it's very hard to just create a game where players have total freedom but the AI behaves historically. In too many key geopolitical cases during this period, what may seem as an isolated action in one country can be the linchpin to much broader actions down the road, that if you remove the individual action from happening, can make having AI nations behave "historically" in any case very hard to justify.
Thats why when i edited my comment i added the example, something happening in France would effect pretty much the whole world. But could Haiti or Burma do anything that would change anything in Europe?
On the whole the big events and those that were set in motion decades before they happened ought to still happen, not nessicarly at the same time, but the mere fact of one little thing being different ought not to change it. France staying with the King would disrupt the path of the history significantly, a liberal victory in an english election that historically went the tories, not so much. Probably what im getting at is a game that would take years of hard work to make so no worries.
Its just the player commanding a country is not going to effectthat much about the rest of europe unless he does something that rocks the boat. But if it sits stable on the water things ought to go as they did, the AI to act like it does the history Books Unless things have gone of course, Orleanist france would be off course, so much more would a republican austria.
Maybe use the Spheres of Influence thing, If your sphere is too ahistorical and if the Great Powers are too it upsets things but places outside of the your sphere largely wont be effectly by your actions unless they are big actions.
On the whole the big events and those that were set in motion decades before they happened ought to still happen, not nessicarly at the same time, but the mere fact of one little thing being different ought not to change it. France staying with the King would disrupt the path of the history significantly, a liberal victory in an english election that historically went the tories, not so much. Probably what im getting at is a game that would take years of hard work to make so no worries.
Its just the player commanding a country is not going to effectthat much about the rest of europe unless he does something that rocks the boat. But if it sits stable on the water things ought to go as they did, the AI to act like it does the history Books Unless things have gone of course, Orleanist france would be off course, so much more would a republican austria.
Maybe use the Spheres of Influence thing, If your sphere is too ahistorical and if the Great Powers are too it upsets things but places outside of the your sphere largely wont be effectly by your actions unless they are big actions.
I vote to ban use of the word "sandbox" in reference to Paradox games.
Unless I get to walk from Lisbon to Riga in first-person, that is.
Unless I get to walk from Lisbon to Riga in first-person, that is.
I'll tell you what I would like to see, since we are discussing a design philosophy, and that's the things that folks have been complaining about for years.
A tutorial and a demo. (Idea came to me in a vision, just right after I answered the question in the demo thread.)
The tutorial can be short, I would think. Just enough to get a player barely started down the path, but at least have one. The players can figure out the game. Heck, if we all managed to figure out the first Vicky, I have not doubt we can handle the second version.
I don't know where I'm get this "we" stuff. I needed tons of help before I managed to actually play a game through.o
The demo would also have to be short, of course, but at least give the players a taste of what they are purchasing.
This is for those cynics amongst us who are expecting the worse. Me? I'm pre-ordering if given an opportunity that I can use. I've promised myself that I owe it to the CK crowd. Plus, I wouldn't mind a CK 2 my self.
If I'm going over territory already covered, my apologies. Don't remember anybody from PI saying anything definite, though.
A tutorial and a demo. (Idea came to me in a vision, just right after I answered the question in the demo thread.
)The tutorial can be short, I would think. Just enough to get a player barely started down the path, but at least have one. The players can figure out the game. Heck, if we all managed to figure out the first Vicky, I have not doubt we can handle the second version.
I don't know where I'm get this "we" stuff. I needed tons of help before I managed to actually play a game through.
oThe demo would also have to be short, of course, but at least give the players a taste of what they are purchasing.
This is for those cynics amongst us who are expecting the worse. Me? I'm pre-ordering if given an opportunity that I can use. I've promised myself that I owe it to the CK crowd. Plus, I wouldn't mind a CK 2 my self.
If I'm going over territory already covered, my apologies. Don't remember anybody from PI saying anything definite, though.
Not to mention what if I as the player has succeeded in turning the south into an industrialized area, where support and need for slavery is waning...
Are you sure not reading the whole post and focusing on just a part of it is the right way to argue people?
Key is not if those are chains or pools (although you can argue that MM got plently of chains, they are just much more "delayed effect" then old school events due to the extensive use of flag checks), but the result - illusion of historical plausability and actual choices that real rulers were facing, plus feeling of "uniqueness" of each country.
Last edited:
Son... i am dissapoint.
Now really im really sad to hear of these news, i love victoria (1) and even though a lot of events were coded, you still had a oppotunity to change history, just add more possibilities into the event system
Well i support Paradox to the fullest and im a big fan, but the "sandbox" road paradox has taken is concerning me