Does the game feel historical to you?
- Thread starter keynes2.0
- 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.
As historical as any strategy game set in this time period can be. And then some.
- 1
I've always viewed EU4 as a highly advanced version of Risk tbh. I think the mileage of historical immersion can differ depending on the region you're playing in. When I play in Europe it's a lot easier to engage in a suspension of disbelief with its variety of mechanics and gameplay features to occupy my mind, but when I'm playing in Asia I question everything that happens and why some things aren't happening when they should be.
- 1
Right now it does not feel historical to me. I am really hoping that the fort changes will change that. I hope it will make warfare more accurately reflect the warfare of the time as opposed to the post-napoleontic warfare. At this point the game should start feeling a whole lot more historical.
I can observe perfectly well the effects of the current behaviour of the Length of war modifier to peace acceptance, which is that countries on the losing side of a war - against other AIs as well as players - continue fighting far longer than is remotely sane, and in the process ruin themselves.
You appear to be tacitly implying that things would be worse if the LoW modifier was less severe. I entirely acknowledge that you have better things to do than engage in lengthy discussion of the topic, so a one sentence summary of how the results would be worse would be entirely sufficient, since I'm sure you've got some observational reports.
- 1
Do the game feel historical to you: No
Do i want it to feel historical: No
Do i want people to stop using historical/ahistorical on these forums: Yes
Why: Becouse using those pretexts people always seems to want to force the game into a narrow box where most of the desicions are a foregone conclusion and i want to play a game, not a history simulator
What i ideally would want is an immersive game in the way that is realistic, you dont go invade Russia in winters in 1500 becouse your entire army would die of attrition, a game where you could actually do as skannerberg and hold of the ottomans for 20 years.
On a final note i personally find eu4 to be one of the best games ive ever played.
Do i want it to feel historical: No
Do i want people to stop using historical/ahistorical on these forums: Yes
Why: Becouse using those pretexts people always seems to want to force the game into a narrow box where most of the desicions are a foregone conclusion and i want to play a game, not a history simulator
What i ideally would want is an immersive game in the way that is realistic, you dont go invade Russia in winters in 1500 becouse your entire army would die of attrition, a game where you could actually do as skannerberg and hold of the ottomans for 20 years.
On a final note i personally find eu4 to be one of the best games ive ever played.
- 1
I think you're putting two different concepts in the same box. Some people want more historical immersion via DHE and credible mechanics, and other people want railroading events so that the AI nations behave almost exactly the same way in every game and tries to do exactly the same as historically happened.
In my opinion, these two concepts aren't related. It's perfectly possible (theoretically at least) to have a game with mechanics to be more historical immersive, but without the railroading that narrows the possibilities of alternate history.
On the winter invasions, you're completely right. Marching your army through Russia or Alpes or Pirineos in the winter, should have devastating effects in it's numbers. Even in it's morale and discipline in battles.
- 1
Historical enough. There's not any good non-PDS games with mostly historical settings at start and portray essentially the entire world.
Also, I am firm adamant believer in gameplay > realism.
Thing's moved on since EU2. No more deadpan railroading...and good riddance! (save Burgundy inheritance
)
Of course, gameplay+realism is always better than just gameplay. But they have a tendency to come in conflict
Also, I am firm adamant believer in gameplay > realism.
Thing's moved on since EU2. No more deadpan railroading...and good riddance! (save Burgundy inheritance
)Of course, gameplay+realism is always better than just gameplay. But they have a tendency to come in conflict
To me making the game more historical would mean getting rid of the vast majority of the DHEs. There's nothing more gamey and unhistorical than the Ottomans ensuring that a 1 province persia is carved out of the Timurids so that they can annex the mameluks in one war rather than five, because Persia was involved in the series of events that led to the war where the Mamluks were annexed in the real world.
I'm not saying that all the DHE are good. Some of them are atrocious (the one in particular you mention, and also the one that gives Goa to Portugal, for example). But, those events that are well balanced actually manage to give some historical immersion.
Attrition is not just from winter weather. The retreat from Moscow is the most famous but the French suffered most of their losses to attrition on the march to Moscow. There is a very interesting time, army size, graph showing how the Grand Armee reduced in size over the campaign.
That is why the games inadequate modelling of supply constraints is probably the biggest ahistorical aspect.
Yes, the game doesn't do a very nice job in modelling the supply to armies, and also the reinforcement.
To answer your question, OP: no.
It does not feel historical or realistic at all. The worlds created are completely unbelievable and ahistorical - but I think that was the intention! I just think it's fun, that's all.
It's a fun game you play in a spare moment and not a simulator of any kind. I most play EU4 for casual chillout with a cup of tea or something when I don't want any challange but I have few hours to spare. Well, to be frank most Paradox games are for fun gameplay only, that's why I love them. If I have a feeling to play something more challenging I start up Vicky 2 or HoI3.
Love Paradox
It does not feel historical or realistic at all. The worlds created are completely unbelievable and ahistorical - but I think that was the intention! I just think it's fun, that's all.
It's a fun game you play in a spare moment and not a simulator of any kind. I most play EU4 for casual chillout with a cup of tea or something when I don't want any challange but I have few hours to spare. Well, to be frank most Paradox games are for fun gameplay only, that's why I love them. If I have a feeling to play something more challenging I start up Vicky 2 or HoI3.
Love Paradox
I know the result quite well. The problem is in the defines I only see a way to globally lower the "stubbornness". Is there a way to mod it so only the winner (as defined by positive war score) gets the length of war modifier?
The LoW modifier is a kludge. The most ideal would be to use other factors to increase or lower AI peace resistance, but as a stopgap applying it only to the winning side (and maybe bumping up something else for the losing side) would be interesting to play with.
I doubt he wants to because it reveals some bad implications. If you lower this modifier, the AI will declare wars, fight briefly, then just peace out for nothing at all, even if it is much stronger than its target. Basically, the AI has virtually no *effective* means of determining whether it's winning or losing other than war score, so that "length of war" is simply functioning as a war timer, a fake stopper put in to make sure the AI stays in a war long enough to get something out of the peace deal.
Of course, that isn't the reason he gave us in the other thread, instead asserting that wars without the modifier wouldn't carry enough risk (as if risk and the extent you fight somehow shouldn't scale on the kind of demands you want :/). Even if the "this lets the AI do anything ever because we don't have a better model for it right now" reason above isn't the only one, the idea that LoW is materially impacting player risk is, in the vast majority of cases, not credible.
There might be other reasons as well.
Last edited:
- 1
Now that you mention it, indeed I agree that LoW malus neither provides inmersion, nor historicity nor benefits the AI vs Human Player at all; totally the opposite. Looks like @TheMeInTeam is right when saying it's a AI vs AI thing. I remember some patches ago, the AI would just white peace quite frequently; didn't see that lately.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...if one were to replace Length of War with other, smaller, and more logical negatives to peace, it would achieve the same result (preventing insta-peace) while preventing the AI from being so stubborn it destroys itself...
- 1
Wiz, with the rework with forts extending zones, does this open for a reconsideration of the necessity of the length of war-modifier? One cannot easily win two battles and then carpet vs a decent sized enemy i understand, unless one has a massive numerical advantage and can assault everything along the way.
I realise the predicament for smaller countries but would it not be more historical for countries to be able to annex a small state, and the remaining enemies being very keen to enforce the release of their former ally as an independent state? Possibly also in future wars (I feel prestige should be involved somehow, it's bad if someone annexes your ally and a feat to resurrect them). It seems more realistic than and being unable to annex ragusa for five years because of their alliance to bar.
Many thanks for your consideration.
- 1
The question is do you see EUIV as a historical simulator or as a game?
- 1
There is some kind of immersion and historical authencitiy when you play in Europe, but then you start a game on an other continent you spot how much the game is focused on Europe with all its gameplay and design choices.
- 1