Does the game feel historical to you?

[keynes2.0]

I'm curious if people feel like the gameplay is historically plausible or not. As a player you probably have the goal of breaking history most of the time but do you feel like the alternative history you are making feels like an alternative history or is it just a result in a game that has no connection to historical reality? The AI is going to go off the rails pretty quickly when you unpause but does it feel historically plausible the way the AI reacts to the random world it finds itself in? Basically, does the game feel immersive?

Also, do you care about immersion at all or do you just play the game as an abstract map painting or whatever goal achieving exercise?

 

[oblio-]

It depends on what you mean by immersive. If you want to feel like you're a part of the era, there are too few internal dynamics for that and the artwork is a bit on the low side (regarding volume).

If you mean plausibility of maps, most results are credible. It generally feels like parallel universes starting in 1444 and slowly diverging.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It does not, and can not, feel historical in a logically consistent way. While the 1444 position is (mostly, but not completely) historical, even the most basic core gameplay mechanics (AE, OE, war score, rebels, colonial range, monarch points, succession, regencies, coalitions, financial management, army sizes/standing armies, logistics) are so far gone from reality and/or are so abstracted that looking at how it plays as "historically plausible" is a fool's errand. This game is advertised as an empire builder and gives a nod to history, but it is not designed around plausible alternative history and has actively deviated from history further over patches.

Basically, when you can't declare a war "because regency" despite no historical example of that existing, your nation can't use guns when it did historically, and you can march 40000 troops + loads of cannons across Asia in less than a year with minimal-to-no attrition or extra cost in 1500 any interpretation that this is an "immersive and plausible alternative history" setup is wishful thinking.

Of course, the game can be immersive, it's just not rational to cite the reason it's immersive as it playing in some "historical" fashion.

The AI understands this too, as it will routinely behave in ahistorical ways and shoot itself in the foot out of spite, such as with the (virtually unjustified) "length of war" modifier. Truly immersive, having nations behave like 6 year old children who are upset they have a setback so they cost themselves even more then quit.

 

[EldarPanic]

Some things are while some are not (yes im looking at you spanish siberia or austrian wallonia)

 

[harvesarmy]

Of course, the game can be immersive, it's just not rational to cite the reason it's immersive as it playing in some "historical" fashion.

This. And i'm all for the game not being totally historical if that means railroading. It can, and does feel immersive, and I think that is because of the sandbox nature of it. Really though, it just takes some imagination when you are playing to maintain "historical immersion". Personally I feel the game should be a bit more dynamic and sandbox - more flexible trade, a varied tech system, religions that are not static in bonuses or character, I was even againt "national ideas" when they came out, and would probably still prefer them to be acquired by things you do rather than just given. But hey this is a good game, the best of its kind probably, and sometimes you just have to use your own brain to fill in the blanks (if of course that is how you want to play, using it almost as a story telling experience from childhood days!) Anyhow, we must try and remember that to contemporaries there were many possible outcomes, and we just so happened to get the history that we did.

 

[gall]

Well, blobs aka super stable empires are immersion breaking, but other than that is ok. Sometimes i go for achievements, sometimes i just play some nation, e.g. i play Timurids with goal to build as much buildings in Samarkand and surrounding provinces as possible. I try to recreate real conquest plans of Timur (Persia [already done]->Iraq->Asia Minor->North India->China), but as you probably suspect i need more time than him and i have less problems with scheming, revolting locals. It's weird i can't rule by fear and slaughter cities if they were not willing to surrender to great khan. It's probably good thing for me, as i don't suffer devastating consequences of such actions. Moreover there is no way to use local tribes or magnates against their overlords as Timur did. Yeah, i can't stabilise Golden Horde (Western Horde was in some way successor of Genghis Khan Empire) and i don't have to care about my overlord being my prisoner .

 

[harvesarmy]

The whole horde thing really needs looking at again IMO. They need some way of keeping up until near as dammit the middle of the 18th century.

 

[inche Lautaro]

I was wondering about that for some time now (acurate historical feel). And I must say its hard to tell. Yes, the mechanics are absolutly diffrent from reality. But on the other side I have lerned a lot about world history playing EU4. Actualy, I have lerned so much from it, I was wondering if that game could be used as a interactive history lesson in high school. What do you think, would it pass?

 

[Adrian Gaming]

EUIV is not a historical simulator. Even though it nods to history, which makes the game awesome, it is not meant to be historical. Not completely, anyway.

Its based off of a board game with the same intention.

 

[Jephery]

Victoria 2 is probably the most immersive/historical Paradox game. Victoria 3 announcement cannot come soon enough.

Maybe in half a century CPUs get fast enough that we can have pop mechanics in every Paradox game.

 

[harvesarmy]

EUIV is not a historical simulator. Even though it nods to history, which makes the game awesome, it is not meant to be historical. Not completely, anyway.

Its based off of a board game with the same intention.

Exactly. If most people think this I cannot see the what fuss can be made from making the game more sandbox?

 

[LastSalian]

It depends on the country. Currently some of the most immersive nations are Poland, England, Venice and the Netherlands. Tons of events and stuff to learn about.

 

[harvesarmy]

It depends on the country. Currently some of the most immersive nations are Poland, England, Venice and the Netherlands. Tons of events and stuff to learn about.

Nations with a nice amount of "nod" to history. It would probably be too intensive to do that for most nations though.

 

[Legend92]

i have never seen hasburg dominance and ottoman-franco alliance, so unfortunately no

 

[Xinkc]

I feel like it's immersive if you let it. Then again I feel that way about all video games and, try as a I might, I cannot understand what people mean when they say their "immersion" is broken.

EDIT: As for how historical things are, I feel other people have said it better. However I would like to say that I've found the "historic" set-up has definitely started me looking more into nations and their history.

 

[RhoDaZZ]

With vanilla, no. With M&T, somewhat plausible - not historical in being deterministic (nor would I ever want that). But over the years I've come to like the model where Paradox puts the game up as a sandbox, not just in terms of gameplay, but also in terms of how users can change it through modding. Players can then choose their favourite way of playing. I happen to enjoy an approach where historical processes are represented more in-depth, but only come into effect under certain circumstances. I see vanilla as some sort of historical superhero fiction in comparison, where history isn't the main course, but a little spice for the occasional TIL moment for more casual players.

 

[BFTeixeira]

With vanilla, no. With M&T, somewhat plausible - not historical in being deterministic (nor would I ever want that). But over the years I've come to like the model where Paradox puts the game up as a sandbox, not just in terms of gameplay, but also in terms of how users can change it through modding. Players can then choose their favourite way of playing. I happen to enjoy an approach where historical processes are represented more in-depth, but only come into effect under certain circumstances. I see vanilla as some sort of historical superhero fiction in comparison, where history isn't the main course, but a little spice for the occasional TIL moment for more casual players.

M&T?

 

[harvesarmy]

I see vanilla as some sort of historical superhero fiction in comparison, where history isn't the main course, but a little spice for the occasional TIL moment for more casual players.

What a nice way of thinking about it!

 

[Zehir]

Still better then Total War series or Civilization.

 

[Gaussia]

The AI understands this too, as it will routinely behave in ahistorical ways and shoot itself in the foot out of spite, such as with the (virtually unjustified) "length of war" modifier. Truly immersive, having nations behave like 6 year old children who are upset they have a setback so they cost themselves even more then quit.

I wonder, have you ever programmed an AI?