Don't focus too much on the early years!

[Arilou]

Okay, just something I've noticed (both with AGCEEP, EU2 and, well, games in general)

Most of the time, the focus is on the early years (obviously, as that is when you can control things, the variables becomes too many after a while) I think there should be a bit more focus on making the game fun and interesting the *entire* time.... A lot of people seems to want to fully integrate a feudal model (okay, slight exaggeration) while this is nice.... That model was on it's way out.

EU is *not* about the Middle-ages: I'd like more focus on the "meat" of the game, the 17th & 18th centuries (at least the latter was generally pretty boring in EU2, as you had generally "won" by then)

Just something that would be good.

 

[unmerged(6303)]

One thing is that people seem to mostly play the GC, rather than the later scenarios.

Here's a stupid suggestion to remind people about the other options: have a selection of splash screens, and take each one from a painting that very clearly comes from a different part of the timeline.

 

[Hallsten]

As I see it the one doesn't rule out the other, you can have a good beginning of the game as well as a good mid and end game at the same time.

If you feel that you're too superior after 200 years of gaming I guess you just need to increase the difficulty...


btw, that's a really badass avatar you have there, my Tallest!

 

[Arilou]

As I see it the one doesn't rule out the other, you can have a good beginning of the game as well as a good mid and end game at the same time.

Yeah, but it seems to be a trend in paradox game to focus on the beginning (which is often great fun) and then the end-game becomes less.... Dynamic? I don't know if it is a problem with the AI or something (I'd *really* like to see an AI that actually forms viable alliances against you if you become too strong, not just random "Everyone declares war" but an actual diplomatic game)

btw, that's a really badass avatar you have there, my Tallest!

Hehe, thanks, I love it myself

 

[5678]

They need to make it so countries more consistently congeal into power blocks. IE, by the end of the game, there should be an English-Prussia axis, and Austria and France should be opposed to each other. Stuff like that. So that the power balance it maintained.

 

[Mowers]

Yeah, but it seems to be a trend in paradox game to focus on the beginning (which is often great fun) and then the end-game becomes less.... Dynamic?

and you know why dont you

 

[Stingray]

and you know why dont you

I think I know, but in the case you have a really deep awnser I'll ask. Why?

 

[Mowers]

I think I know, but in the case you have a really deep awnser I'll ask. Why?

This is going to be disappointing for you

Same old Mowers point. The reason the later years dont work is because we need a generic event model that changes over time to reflect changing dynamics rather than a fixed event model. Combined with a dynamic diplomatic evolution rather than the 2 dimensional system the game would never get boring.

 

[Arilou]

This is going to be disappointing for you

Same old Mowers point. The reason the later years dont work is because we need a generic event model that changes over time to reflect changing dynamics rather than a fixed event model. Combined with a dynamic diplomatic evolution rather than the 2 dimensional system the game would never get boring.

Or it would simply get boring immediately, depending on your POV.

 

[Mowers]

Or it would simply get boring immediately, depending on your POV.

Right now the model doesnt work it creates the very problem you are complaining about. (there are other factors - with the diplomatic model being an important issue) . From what I understand you are suggesting keeping the same event model which is the basis of your problem. I dont need to point out the irony

 

[Arilou]

Right now the model doesnt work it creates the very problem you are complaining about. (there are other factors - with the diplomatic model being an important issue) . From what I understand you are suggesting keeping the same event model which is the basis of your problem. I dont need to point out the irony

Actually it's not, the problem has very little to do with the event engine at all, as much as it has with the game-engine promoting unreasonable results: The far the events has been the best way of steering things "Back on track" but it is hardly perfect.

 

[Mowers]

Actually it's not, the problem has very little to do with the event engine at all, as much as it has with the game-engine promoting unreasonable results: The far the events has been the best way of steering things "Back on track" but it is hardly perfect.

But as you have said, they dont work. Indeed you started a thread on the matter. But still you think they are a solution? Like has already been written by senior associates of paradox, we had 1000s of events in the end- yet still it didnt work. How many events do you need to get it to work? 10,000? Large numbers of historical events with hundreds of people contributing failed to work, and its been made clear that the programing resources dont exist to create 10,000 events. Basically that isnt going to happen, and "better" events isnt the answer either- we tried that one already.

If you disagree on the cause then thats a more interesting point - I would be interested to read what you think is the problem? Obviously its more than just events, which are imo a failed band-aid to rectify a faulty model.

 

[Zanza]

I agree with that notion. CK is going into right direction with making large realms harder to hold. There should be a law of dimishing returns for your empire size in EU2 too. At some point the communications are just not good enough anymore to make it efficient.

 

[Mowers]

I agree with that notion. CK is going into right direction with making large realms harder to hold. There should be a law of dimishing returns for your empire size in EU2 too. At some point the communications are just not good enough anymore to make it efficient.

The CK expansion break model is inspired, a truely great peice of software modelling of a historical development. The idea should be a core part of EU3.

In CK relations with new vassals are great, perhaps he was your brother, but over time they can decline and change in strange ways and that would work well in EU3 as it would model the decline of power over time thus creating a nice rise and decline of power.

 

[Grosshaus]

It´s quite hard to properly beta test the late-game, which is partly a reason why the start-games always have been focused more upon. You just don´t have the time to finish games after every beta patch.

For some companies a priority is also to have a stunning first impression to sell it to the media. Luckily I haven´t seen Paradox ever have that attitude.

 

[Arilou]

But as you have said, they dont work. Indeed you started a thread on the matter. But still you think they are a solution? Like has already been written by senior associates of paradox, we had 1000s of events in the end- yet still it didnt work. How many events do you need to get it to work? 10,000? Large numbers of historical events with hundreds of people contributing failed to work, and its been made clear that the programing resources dont exist to create 10,000 events. Basically that isnt going to happen, and "better" events isnt the answer either- we tried that one already.

If you disagree on the cause then thats a more interesting point - I would be interested to read what you think is the problem? Obviously its more than just events, which are imo a failed band-aid to rectify a faulty model.

As I see it, the events are an attempt to steer the game back onto historical tracks, they are about as effective at doing this as pissing on a forest fire. Using events only (like in CK) doesen't work quite simply because the game engine itself was broken. That doesen't mean events themselves are useless: Just that the core gameplay needs to be fixed first (take something that almost always failed in EU2: The Mughal conquest of India, that didn't work with the standard AI, so they used events to beef it up, that helped a little (they AI could do it once in a blue moon) Now, what you can do is either try to replicate every detail of *why* the Mughals succeeded (which is, I dare say, impossible, not if you want to have an actual game, some things have to be abstracted) or you cheat. (For reasons of what is realistic to code you have to cheat sometimes) Events are (usually) the way to do the latter, when you can't cause a historical result by the core engine you''ll have to "cheat" with an event. (And no, we won't be able to get a perfect engine with EU3 either: It just won't happen) But an event (or even a series of events) can only do so much: They can't fix everything if the core engine is broken (like in CK))

 

[Arilou]

It´s quite hard to properly beta test the late-game, which is partly a reason why the start-games always have been focused more upon. You just don´t have the time to finish games after every beta patch.

For some companies a priority is also to have a stunning first impression to sell it to the media. Luckily I haven´t seen Paradox ever have that attitude.

Yeah, I know that's true for practical reasons: Which is why there ought to be some special attention towards checking out the end-game.

 

[Mowers]

As I see it, the events are an attempt to steer the game back onto historical tracks, they are about as effective at doing this as pissing on a forest fire. Using events only (like in CK) doesen't work quite simply because the game engine itself was broken. That doesen't mean events themselves are useless: Just that the core gameplay needs to be fixed first (take something that almost always failed in EU2: The Mughal conquest of India, that didn't work with the standard AI, so they used events to beef it up, that helped a little (they AI could do it once in a blue moon) Now, what you can do is either try to replicate every detail of *why* the Mughals succeeded (which is, I dare say, impossible, not if you want to have an actual game, some things have to be abstracted) or you cheat. (For reasons of what is realistic to code you have to cheat sometimes) Events are (usually) the way to do the latter, when you can't cause a historical result by the core engine you''ll have to "cheat" with an event. (And no, we won't be able to get a perfect engine with EU3 either: It just won't happen) But an event (or even a series of events) can only do so much: They can't fix everything if the core engine is broken (like in CK))

Hence my initial emphasis on getting the core engine right first rather than relying on pre applied band aid approach that is events (imo - every band aid applied creates 2 additional problems)

I dont rule out all historical events ( I dont rule out anything in general) but I would reduce them to a handful if they are required and concentrate limited programing resources on creating that which is achievable. I believe we are likely to get a more realistic and historical picture with generic events that create boundries through restrictions and penalties and a evolution ruleset framework that makes extremely unlikely any unplausible developments. Although I do acknowledge that there are limitations on what can be achieved in terms of a model with the resources that are available to the team.

There is the ever lasting problem of AI routines going wrong and this is due to map and gameplay complexity and would be better fixed by reducing the options for the AI to go wrong by simplfying objectives and the map rather than adding band aid events - case in point byzantium and the Ottoman empire AIs.

Furthermore the more band aid events that are applied to beef up an AI further distort the country for MP purposes, making the MP aspect unbalanced.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Problem with checking out the end game is that it is different every time while the start of a game is the same - or at least deviates from history a lot less than the end of a game. As game time goes on the posiible deviations from history increase exponentially. Thus events are not as likely to be in line with the game situation the fruther from the start of the game they fire.

Mowers has a good point but I am not sure a model could be built to implement what he suggests without being an overly generic model which feels more like Civ than EU.

With the diversity of actions taken in history it would be very difficult to make them all possible with a generic model. You would need a model (or AI) for each country to fully represent all of the major events in history of the era. And with that you might just as well have specific events which would be less costly to program and test.

 

[Mowers]

Yeah, I know that's true for practical reasons: Which is why there ought to be some special attention towards checking out the end-game.

As this is what your thread is really about let me give some attention to it

The end game would be much better with the following imo:

1) random end year dependant on first republican revolution in Europe
2) A character system that radically changes state position
3) Harsh relative Restrictions (compared to EU2) on player control of tech and industry to stall development and stop ahistoric and unrealstic abuse of the economic game engine (vicky was appalling for this, a soviet style central economy in the age of total economic freedom)
4) Diplomatic AI that switches opinion by ruler (as opposed to going to -200 and staying there for 200 years)
5) Have diplomatic AI do random unexpected actions 20% of the time.
6) Have more (random) interaction between AI states
7) Have the AI recognise "power blocks" in advance and act to deter them
8) Place emphasis on zones of influence rather than zones of direct control - limit direct control and make the gameplay about controlling zones of influence and thus you gameplay dynamics and tensions that create conflict as zones of influence ebb and wane between various states and internal aspects.
9) Generic events that drastically effect industrial and trade patterns to mimick the rise and fall of trading powers rather than just the rise.
10) Have an internal domestic vicky pop/ck character relationship that is as interesting year 200 as it was in year 1 and as engaging regardless of whether you are a large or small state
11) an unstable world economy that radically changes over time drastically effecting countries and players in the medium to long term.
12) A more indepth and developed revolution/ rebellion system that effects overly large states over time.
13) Remove control over what merchants actually do and give control over the flow of trade and how its taxed and how it interfaces with your neighbours leading to trade wars and conflict.