-
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.
The random number generator has indeed been improved, but I've never experienced what you describe so I'm perhaps not the best one to talk to.
I first brought this up around 1.06 or so. Not everyone said that it would happen to them. Peter Ebbesen was one that I'm fairly certain said that he indeed found it to happen when he knew to look for it. The best test is through the Fantasia scenario. Look for the same tax values and success % in the visible provinces to repeat. When you get the same board a second time, you should get the same pattern of success and failure when you colonize the same province as you did on the first. Actually you shouldn't, if it is truly random, but you get my point. If I understand things correctly the tax value distribution is indicative of a given seed, so subsequent actions that call on it would get the same sequence each time. In any case, I am glad the rng got some attention.
Last edited:
I think that perhaps Toio and myself are simply singing from different hymn sheets. 
I understand his philosophy (and particularly the AGCEEP staying true to its historical roots) but I don't think this means that FTG (vanilla) can not adopt an optional, alternative engine for those of us who wish to play things a little differently.
If EU3 can do it, then I don't see why FTG can't.*
* I realise the historical monarchs option is somewhat 'broken' in EU3, but it shouldn't be the case with FTG as it would always be the primary feature, not the secondary (as it is with EU3).
I understand his philosophy (and particularly the AGCEEP staying true to its historical roots) but I don't think this means that FTG (vanilla) can not adopt an optional, alternative engine for those of us who wish to play things a little differently.
If EU3 can do it, then I don't see why FTG can't.*
* I realise the historical monarchs option is somewhat 'broken' in EU3, but it shouldn't be the case with FTG as it would always be the primary feature, not the secondary (as it is with EU3).
When I first heard of EU3 and that it didn't have 100% historical monarchs, I thought that it'd be dynamic. I was like "Maybe there would be a freak chance of 1 in 10000000000 of a historical monarch dying before his/her time, or randomized monarchs in newly-sprouting countries with no monarch lists, and other dynamic stuff! So it'll still be historical, but with surprises!"
Instead it was 100% random after the first historical monarch died no matter what. Fail.
So yeah, dynamic monarchs would improve EU2 quite a bit. I agree with making it optional.
Instead it was 100% random after the first historical monarch died no matter what. Fail.
So yeah, dynamic monarchs would improve EU2 quite a bit. I agree with making it optional.
How, in practice, would dynamic monarchs differ from random ones? The argument has been made against historical monarchs when a country behaves ahistorically... ok, what are the alternatives? As I see it, you could:
#1 Have some system where generic/random fantasy monarchs are introduced based on various scored ratings by country size, provinces owned, annexed and then liberated or whatever might differentiate the country from its historical situation at a particular point in time. In that case, how is it really better than the historical monarchs? I mean really, how is it more fun and/or realistic to have "Richard IV" or "John II" plugged in arbitrarily because England won the Hundred Years War?
#2 You could have a true dynamic scored system where more success got you better monarchs and more failure got you worse ones, but to me that would just exaggerate existing patterns in an ahistorical way, and almost certainly favor the human player
#3 You could have the opposite system, where the game engine compensated by giving weakening nations stronger monarchs in some misbegotten effort at "game balance". However, this would be if anything even less historical than #3.
#4 On the other hand, you could have a system of speculative monarchs, or indeed dynasties scripted based on theories about who might have been king if such-and-such was never born, or lost a certain battle. Some efforts in this direction already exist in AGCEEP and other mods with (for example) events based on Richard III winning at Bosworth or the Stuarts keeping the throne of Britain.
HOWEVER such a system can already be done with events, and would not really require a dynamic engine. Engine or not, doing this for every nation would be a HUGE project, almost an AGCEEP-sized mod unto itself. Though of all the options, this is the only one that to me actually might add fun and interest or even (in a very loose sense) historical realism, the cost in terms of work to create it is enormous relative to the benefits.
Any other suggestions?
#1 Have some system where generic/random fantasy monarchs are introduced based on various scored ratings by country size, provinces owned, annexed and then liberated or whatever might differentiate the country from its historical situation at a particular point in time. In that case, how is it really better than the historical monarchs? I mean really, how is it more fun and/or realistic to have "Richard IV" or "John II" plugged in arbitrarily because England won the Hundred Years War?
#2 You could have a true dynamic scored system where more success got you better monarchs and more failure got you worse ones, but to me that would just exaggerate existing patterns in an ahistorical way, and almost certainly favor the human player
#3 You could have the opposite system, where the game engine compensated by giving weakening nations stronger monarchs in some misbegotten effort at "game balance". However, this would be if anything even less historical than #3.
#4 On the other hand, you could have a system of speculative monarchs, or indeed dynasties scripted based on theories about who might have been king if such-and-such was never born, or lost a certain battle. Some efforts in this direction already exist in AGCEEP and other mods with (for example) events based on Richard III winning at Bosworth or the Stuarts keeping the throne of Britain.
HOWEVER such a system can already be done with events, and would not really require a dynamic engine. Engine or not, doing this for every nation would be a HUGE project, almost an AGCEEP-sized mod unto itself. Though of all the options, this is the only one that to me actually might add fun and interest or even (in a very loose sense) historical realism, the cost in terms of work to create it is enormous relative to the benefits.
Any other suggestions?
And yes, I understand that people are proposing an option, not a change to the core game. However, the question above still remains.
It'd certainly be strange if the monarch file never changed for England winning the HYW. Realism is rather relative however, considering that such action has a history-changing result.
I'm... pretty sure no one's asking for that. Random monarchs, random stats.
Once again, I don't see where anyone was asking for #2. There are plenty of godlike monarchs in EU2. They're rare, though, which is the point.
Correct. I can see this co-existing with a dynamic monarch system.
Not really. The only real effort needed would be in writing up names for each country, but even then it could just be based off of the already-existent monarch lists for the most part.
The point of dynamic monarchs is not to cover what events can, but to cover what events cannot. For example, let us say that various wars have been conducted in India and that area is pretty much totally different. Countries have gone, new ones arisen, and old ones coming back in different situations (e.g. vassals). Or, rather, let us say that someone has unified all of India for 200 years, but then it breaks apart and old countries return. I expect some different monarchs to spring up in some of the old-turned-new countries.
In such a case not only would event files be arbitrary, but it would take far more work than just having a dynamic monarch system. Events should be used for expected alt. history dynasty changes (e.g. HYW), dynamic monarchs for the unexpected. For example, dynamic monarchs for the HYW would make some mad for historical reasons. "Why do I have a monarch named X!?" This can be fixed via events. Whereas totally out-of-nowhere occurrences (someone unites all of Europe and then states break away à la Indian example above) are more easily explainable.
Last edited:
Aratar, I do think you are being a touch overzealous in your assumptions regarding the implementation of dynamic monarchs. Most of your points are rather redundant, as Mrdie states, and some of us simply wish for a more historically-minded dynamic system.
Personally (and no doubt this is just me), I would argue for removing all monarch changing (ie, sleep/wake) commands in the vanilla game, and use the sort of system I speak of.
The reason being that the vanilla game is so watered-down in terms of events and monarch/leader files, and so strict and undynamic with regards to event triggers, that to keep it so forcibly adhered to history is almost absurd.
With Mrdie's above points in mind... think of how quickly and easily you can diverge from history, and yet your country's general events are all the same (give or take the firing triggers, which are not particularly complex), as are its monarchs and leaders. What happens when you diverge so far outside of history that none of this makes sense? Nothing, because for the most part you have no alternative - a few major countries do (ie continued Stuart line or post-1700 Spanish Habsburgs) but even then the choice is so rigid that unless other major states play almost to the letter (historically speaking) then none of this makes any sense from a national or European perspective.
The AGCEEP is different because its primary focus is on history - with limited scope for plausible, realistic ahistory, and suitable evidence is usually provided when this is the case. As such, I tend to treat it as a different kettle of fish, as the AGCEEP is father less focused on what the player can do, and more on how well he can guide history. He has his own version of history, but he doesn't necessarily have his own history - which is a different thing altogether, and not compatible with either the engine itself (currently) or the AGCEEP's mission statement.
This is not a bad thing, and I certainly do not condemn them for it.
The vanilla game, however, should be far more open-ended, and with a different premise in mind. I want to play vanilla EU2 (particularly in single player) in order to do my own thing, and see where it takes me.
I don't want to start a game in 1399 as England with a pre-set history determined for me. I don't want to play knowing full-well that the Civil War will occur in the 1640s, and that my king will get executed. And yes, I know this can be averted with different slider options, but that's clearly not what I mean.
Conversely, nor do I want to play the same game only in which for King Henry IV to die in 1403 and be succeeded by a completely made-up King Peter, or to have my country inherited by far-off Georgia - when I know full well that up to that point I've had sod all to do with them, let alone be married into their royal family.
I've described my ideal system (or at least a first draft of it) in a previous post, so I shall not repeat it here, but the point remains that I do not advocate random monarchs. The EU3 system is flawed, particularly at the beginning of a scenario when you know who is alive and who is not - and more importantly, who is heir to the throne.
If I play as France in 1617, then I have a fair idea of how things will play out - at least in the short term. Having a personal union with King Richard IV of Great Britain by 1804 would not be a problem for me, however, as it's a long way into the future, and anything could happen by then.
It may seem strange for some people to see this, and I certainly know of people who would be abhorred by it, for they see EU2 as an historical simulator/game and that's final. I, however, would not, because I know that in those 200 years anything could have happened, and what happened historically is simply our version of what did happen, as opposed to my game's version of what could have happened.
For me, although EU2 has always been my most beloved Paradox title by far, its major flaw was always in that everything was so pre-determined, so static, that you always felt at least somewhat walled in by history. And I love history. The slightest fabrication or U-turn by one country (be it a human endeavour or a B or C choice in an event) could have massive repercussions on another country, and before you know it a few months' worth of fighting or alt. events have effectively rendered two or three countries' monarch files null and void.
You know that this pince or that king would never have been born, and so you know that everything from then on is absurd. That was the major flaw of EU2 - you had so little say in the grander scheme of things. You could move your sliders, you could move your armies and navies, but you could never truly change history, because you could never truly change what was at the heart of history during this period - dynasties.
I've rambled on enough, but I think you can see where I'm coming from. I hope so anyway.o
In short: please give us this option, and consult with us on how to implement it, and then I can enjoy the EU3 that should have been, and I can enjoy the AGCEEP as a separate mod - an interactive history book game.
Personally (and no doubt this is just me), I would argue for removing all monarch changing (ie, sleep/wake) commands in the vanilla game, and use the sort of system I speak of.
The reason being that the vanilla game is so watered-down in terms of events and monarch/leader files, and so strict and undynamic with regards to event triggers, that to keep it so forcibly adhered to history is almost absurd.
With Mrdie's above points in mind... think of how quickly and easily you can diverge from history, and yet your country's general events are all the same (give or take the firing triggers, which are not particularly complex), as are its monarchs and leaders. What happens when you diverge so far outside of history that none of this makes sense? Nothing, because for the most part you have no alternative - a few major countries do (ie continued Stuart line or post-1700 Spanish Habsburgs) but even then the choice is so rigid that unless other major states play almost to the letter (historically speaking) then none of this makes any sense from a national or European perspective.
The AGCEEP is different because its primary focus is on history - with limited scope for plausible, realistic ahistory, and suitable evidence is usually provided when this is the case. As such, I tend to treat it as a different kettle of fish, as the AGCEEP is father less focused on what the player can do, and more on how well he can guide history. He has his own version of history, but he doesn't necessarily have his own history - which is a different thing altogether, and not compatible with either the engine itself (currently) or the AGCEEP's mission statement.
This is not a bad thing, and I certainly do not condemn them for it.
The vanilla game, however, should be far more open-ended, and with a different premise in mind. I want to play vanilla EU2 (particularly in single player) in order to do my own thing, and see where it takes me.
I don't want to start a game in 1399 as England with a pre-set history determined for me. I don't want to play knowing full-well that the Civil War will occur in the 1640s, and that my king will get executed. And yes, I know this can be averted with different slider options, but that's clearly not what I mean.
Conversely, nor do I want to play the same game only in which for King Henry IV to die in 1403 and be succeeded by a completely made-up King Peter, or to have my country inherited by far-off Georgia - when I know full well that up to that point I've had sod all to do with them, let alone be married into their royal family.
I've described my ideal system (or at least a first draft of it) in a previous post, so I shall not repeat it here, but the point remains that I do not advocate random monarchs. The EU3 system is flawed, particularly at the beginning of a scenario when you know who is alive and who is not - and more importantly, who is heir to the throne.
If I play as France in 1617, then I have a fair idea of how things will play out - at least in the short term. Having a personal union with King Richard IV of Great Britain by 1804 would not be a problem for me, however, as it's a long way into the future, and anything could happen by then.
It may seem strange for some people to see this, and I certainly know of people who would be abhorred by it, for they see EU2 as an historical simulator/game and that's final. I, however, would not, because I know that in those 200 years anything could have happened, and what happened historically is simply our version of what did happen, as opposed to my game's version of what could have happened.
For me, although EU2 has always been my most beloved Paradox title by far, its major flaw was always in that everything was so pre-determined, so static, that you always felt at least somewhat walled in by history. And I love history. The slightest fabrication or U-turn by one country (be it a human endeavour or a B or C choice in an event) could have massive repercussions on another country, and before you know it a few months' worth of fighting or alt. events have effectively rendered two or three countries' monarch files null and void.
You know that this pince or that king would never have been born, and so you know that everything from then on is absurd. That was the major flaw of EU2 - you had so little say in the grander scheme of things. You could move your sliders, you could move your armies and navies, but you could never truly change history, because you could never truly change what was at the heart of history during this period - dynasties.
I've rambled on enough, but I think you can see where I'm coming from. I hope so anyway.
oIn short: please give us this option, and consult with us on how to implement it, and then I can enjoy the EU3 that should have been, and I can enjoy the AGCEEP as a separate mod - an interactive history book game.
Subscribing this, I would like to add just one more thing to everyone. Isn't so much more rewarding and entertaining to know we are shaping history, making history? Not in a random, but in a plausible way. To know that it could perfectly have happened if only... I believe here lies the attraction and beauty of this system.
That said, I'm really, really happy to know that there will be core and culture changes in FtG. Something I always thought EU2 missed to be pretty much the perfect game. This proposal of dynamic monarchs would be the perfect accomplishment to this.
Mrdie: what you are proposing is what I thought some of the other advocates of "dynamic monarchs" were rejecting - essentially random monarch names and stats as soon as things change from the historical path. And YES, if they have no historical reason or context, they are random.
The argument that dynamic monarchs add realism falls apart at that point, since again, how is some random "Richard IV" type monarch anything but fantasy?
Plus, even that is proposing quite a bit of coding and data file work.
I'd say there are many more pressing priorities, and FtG is specifically intended to be a high-context, immersive game. If you want to play EU3, play EU3.
The argument that dynamic monarchs add realism falls apart at that point, since again, how is some random "Richard IV" type monarch anything but fantasy?
Plus, even that is proposing quite a bit of coding and data file work.
I'd say there are many more pressing priorities, and FtG is specifically intended to be a high-context, immersive game. If you want to play EU3, play EU3.
For the same reason "What If" situations exist. It's random, but the point is that it can still be roleplayed. (For example, look at CK AARs, or even detailed EU3 AARs, and the latter is significantly harder to do since it's 100% random) The other side of this argument is asking how it is realistic for one static monarch family to exist forever through blatantly ahistorical situations that would have no doubt caused some changes in the family dynasty.
It is dynamic because it keeps the realistic lines of the dynasty and monarch lists, etc. going until something (if ever) clearly comes along and changes it. That way it is neither static nor completely random, which is what EU2 and 3 are, respectively. It doesn't require any real suspension of disbelief either, unlike EU3. A country pursues a totally different course, has royal marriages with other countries, etc., and then 200 years down the line a break with the historical list can be easily rationalized as a different family than historically, etc.
So it cannot be compared with fantasy. It is merely "What If?" Similar to "What if Russia never formed?" Or "What if Russia formed under a different dynasty?" Etc.
We don't want EU3's system, because it is not dynamic. It is completely random and the historical monarch list isn't even remotely followed beyond the monarch you start with. (There is, of course, the historical monarch option but then that's static like EU2)
As noted, the chance of the historical dynasties and such being "thrown off course" would be very, very low anyway except in dramatic changes of history. In a game with about 200 countries following a generally historical pattern, ideally about 10-20 or so of those countries will experience breaches in their historical monarch lists. Quite likely less than 10.
Last edited:
Again, where is the added realism of basically random monarchs? If one is going to follow the route of variant dynasties, it only makes sense if one takes the time to construct the alternate timelines and the possible, as opposed to random, alternate monarchs. Again again, such fantasy scenarios might be fun, but would be a lot of work... are YOU willing to put in such work, or are you simply hoping that Yoda and his team will do it for you?
I would say that allowing for divergences from historical dynasties when warranted is realistic, yes. As is the belief that if history changes from the norm it's plausible that marriages, births, etc. do not proceed as in history.
How so? I mean sure, if players want to mod the game to include them, but then again this would be an optional feature to begin with. Using this logic the game developers should write thousands upon thousands of events for every alt. history scenario that could occur in the game.
Instead they do it as part of AGCEEP.
But seriously, where does "it only makes sense..." come from? It only makes sense perhaps for the most notable of dynastic changes, and those would be handled by events anyway and thus be out of the scope of dynamic monarchs. No one is asking for preset alternate and "realistic" (as "realistic" as 1/2/300-year historical static lists of royal houses that never came to power and whose actual dynasties would no doubt have been quite different if they did can be) dynasties for every situation anymore than people asking for events simulating the greeting of Albanian explorers by the Native Americans upon the glorious landings by the former of the latter's lands in 1492.
Once again: The point of dynamic monarchs is not to cover what events can, but to cover what events cannot. Events can already be used to insert different predetermined dynasties, which is all fine and dandy for the HYW and such. But for totally unexpected occurrences that simply cannot be made into events, dynamic (yes, random) monarchs are necessary.
I never asked for a fantasy scenario with hundreds of alternate timelines, just dynamic monarchs, so your point is irrelevant because you're putting words into my mouth. If Yoda and Co. don't want to put in dynamic monarchs in then that's just fine. It's their game, and we offered suggestions. It isn't like we won't buy it.
Last edited:
Actually, I think one thing that could be cool that is somewhat "dynamic" is to be able to have entries in monarch files of possible historical pretenders/pretender dynasties. Said pretenders could be activated by things like governmental collapses
That would basically fall under events, though, and wouldn't be much different from what is currently being used.
And these Dynamic monarchs will never have a really bad , awful one , correct???
Of course they will have. Criminals and saints are not restricted to the ruling house.
Then what the point of having dynamic rulers when you can get the same type via the historical rulers, ?????? very strange ........conspiracy theory!!!
Why ruin a historical game when you can have dynamic rulers in EU3????
Seems Like some people want to destroy the last historic EU2 game there is around and deny the lovers of historic games any enjoyment.