Dynasty Potential

[Mowers]

I would really like this system.

A court and vassal system based on CK type characters and Vicky style POPs that influences the key decision making process and in which the base dynamic relationships change over time as technical and social issues develop.

That would be a great "game" as well as historic and realistic.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I would really like this system.

A court and vassal system based on CK type characters and Vicky style POPs that influences the key decision making process and in which the base dynamic relationships change over time as technical and social issues develop.

That would be a great "game" as well as historic and realistic.

Mowers, in all likelyhood, it would make for an exceedingly long game only attractive to a small number of players, and it would not be EU3 (play-feel, attracting the player base of the EU series) in anything but name. Victoria style Pops were a great experiment in simulation - which flunked spectacularly in execution and fun, and CK Dynasties, while interesting, tended to collapse under their own weight in micromanagement except for the most dedicated dynastical builders. The clunky interface helped towards that end, certainly, but the main problem remained ever increasing numbers of nobodies to manage events for.

Which are two of the reasons why neither of those two games came anywhere close to the popularity of EU2.

Repeating failure in order to be more "realistic" and "historic" seems like the sort of path that a smart software developer wouldn't take. Thus I fully expect Paradox to let EU3 remain focused on overall strategy from a classic "Kings & Battles" perspective rather than delve into making it more dynastical-management or population focused, or, if those aspects are further developed, it will be to a much, much, smaller degree than in CK or Victoria.

What I read into the "CK personality..." quote is something far more simple. Instead of giving a monarch the DIP/ADM/MIL stats, he'll get some base stats and a number of traits (reflective of the real person in history, no matter how "ahistorical" that may seem), with the possibility of adding to traits via random events. A large part of the charm of the EU series (however unrealistic from an ahistorical development point of view) was the "I know this general/king/event/whatnot from my history lessons and/or past games" - and I see no good reason to abandon such a good working mechanic just for the sake of something arbitrarily labeled realism.

Another example of this is the good old contextual events vs. historical events. There's no doubt whatsoever which fits best in any sort of ahistorical history, given how often the latter are completely inappropriate to the sort of world the occur in, but nevertheless, they have a certain charm. Compare, e.g.

The circumstances at this point in time result in a really bad religious war, scaled properly to your countrysize and taking into account your current slider settings and a random roll of the dice, how do you react?"

with the historic:

War of Religions! Due to the actions of the perfidious Count of Pomme de Terre, war has erupted in the southern provinces! Do you support the left-handed genuflectors or the right-handed ones? Historically, the faction supported by Cardinal Biggles won after the sheep-shagging event of 1566 discredited Cardinal Fang, but YOU CAN CHANGE HISTORY!

The latter event is obviously superior, even if (in your current game), your state religion is Banananism and the event really shouldn't happen just because it did historically.

*ducks*

 

[Twoflower]

Why bother doing a dynastic system, then?

Because the acquisition of claims, inheritances and influence through dynastic marriages was of paramount importance in EU3's period. It's how Brandenburg and Austria rose to great powers and it was the reason for some of the biggest wars of the era. In the system I'm thinking of, dynastic ties would allow you to inherit a country - not through events, but through a game mechanisms -, they would under certain circumstances give you a claim on the throne and they should massively affect diplomatic relations and alliances.
Just as two very obvious examples, Burgundy and Brittany would pass to whoever has managed to marry Mary of Burgundy and Anne of Brittany, respectively. Of course, this shouldn't be doable just by being the first to ask, but should require lengthy and hard preparations.

The point is that the children, marriages, and reigns would be different from history. Many monarchs did not have legitimate children, like both Charles II of England and Spain. Why marry then if I know in hindsight that my monarch will have no decendents? I'll just do an alliance, then.

If you know in hindsight that you monarch is going to be childless (which e.g. in the case of Juan el Hechizado or Charles II isn't even unrealistic, since most of Europe was historically busy negotiating who should succeed them already years before their death), you should be in a hell of a lot of trouble to prevent your country being inherited by the monarch of another country that would absorb it while still needing to find a successor (who you'd get to succeed by marrying him off to a female dynasty member) that has some sort of international and domestic support.

Also, how to simulate Louis XV (great-grandson of Louis XIV) if his predecessor has legitimate children who are still alive? Want the successive deaths of all your French heirs and grandheirs that you groomed and cared for hardcoded?

You would not groom and care for them. There should be no dynastical events and no court like in CK in EU3; characters should appear in the dynastic trees and impact the game by the legal and diplomatic consequences of dynastic ties.

And what if I DON'T want James VI to succeed Elizabeth, Queen of England?

Easy: Marry off Elizabeth to one of her suitors, or don't marry Margaret Tudor to James IV in the first place so James won't have a claim on the throne.

My own nitpicks? One, I want dowries. I want Tangiers as dowry if my Charles II marry Catherine of Bragance. Two, I want prenuptials and bethrotals. Last, I want marriage deals.
D.

Marriage deals, that would to a large extent be about dowries, would be cool.

 

[unmerged(2005)]

I believe a dynastic model is a must. It just has to be FAR FAR less involved than CK. I really would only want to make marriage decisions for the six most important dynasty members. And that should be about all required of the player. That would allow for inheritance claims and impacts on diplomatic relations, without turning this aspect into a micromanagement nightmare.

All very simple and only requiring every couple of years a decision. No courtiers, education, etc. That's all superfluous and unnecessary.

 

[Mowers]

Mowers, in all likelyhood, it would make for an exceedingly long game only attractive to a small number of players, and it would not be EU3 (play-feel, attracting the player base of the EU series) in anything but name. Victoria style Pops were a great experiment in simulation - which flunked spectacularly in execution and fun, and CK Dynasties, while interesting, tended to collapse under their own weight in micromanagement except for the most dedicated dynastical builders. The clunky interface helped towards that end, certainly, but the main problem remained ever increasing numbers of nobodies to manage events for.

Which are two of the reasons why neither of those two games came anywhere close to the popularity of EU2.

Repeating failure in order to be more "realistic" and "historic" seems like the sort of path that a smart software developer wouldn't take. Thus I fully expect Paradox to let EU3 remain focused on overall strategy from a classic "Kings & Battles" perspective rather than delve into making it more dynastical-management or population focused, or, if those aspects are further developed, it will be to a much, much, smaller degree than in CK or Victoria.

What I read into the "CK personality..." quote is something far more simple. Instead of giving a monarch the DIP/ADM/MIL stats, he'll get some base stats and a number of traits (reflective of the real person in history, no matter how "ahistorical" that may seem), with the possibility of adding to traits via random events. A large part of the charm of the EU series (however unrealistic from an ahistorical development point of view) was the "I know this general/king/event/whatnot from my history lessons and/or past games" - and I see no good reason to abandon such a good working mechanic just for the sake of something arbitrarily labeled realism.

We already have a domestic management system, you invest in technology, you manage rebellions rates, you build infrastructure buildings. Thats all in the core game already.

I am suggesting we remove it because its fairly lame, open to exploitation, unrealistic and ahistoric and doesnt really make for a great gameplay experience. Furthermore it takes years of patches to balance out effectively. If I want that sort of gameplay I can get it elsewhere and, no offence, get it much better. This is the sort of gameplay that failed badly in CK and Vicky.

In its place I am suggesting we put in a simple Vicky style POP and CK style Character model (do they need to be exactly the same - no of course not I wouldnt expect them to be so, search vicky beta forums for why I was so hugely disappointed with vicky style POP implementation) that the character relates and interacts with. I am not advocating a fully blown version of either nor one that takes any longer to manage than the elements that I have suggested we remove in the previous paragraph.

I am not suggesting we micromanage economies or POPs or give huge - both was actually ahistoric and unrealistic and as you point out it was not commercially successful. I am merely suggesting replacing elements of gameplay that smack exactly of the sorts of issues are talking about with an alternative system that adds a greater realism and historical interest whilst having the potential to be considerably more fun than placing manufactories, sending merchants, placing governor buildings and deciding (*snickers*) the rate of government investment in technology. None of these things really served any purpose in game and I believe that there could be a more interesting, dynamic and fun alternative.

 

[unmerged(2005)]

"simple Vicky style POP"

I'd like to see a social system on the lines of CK on a national level with the classes being more assertive. But a very very simple Vicky style Pop system you cannot directly manage, but simply exists pretty autonomously would also work. We need a real dynamic society. Mowers really is on to something when calling for this and the doing away of the various poorly implemented Civ-style elements...

Death to province/COT-centred micromanagement, hello realm politics!

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Hiya, Mowers. It was not obvious from your previous post that what you supported was a (where player control is concerned) very limited version of the CK/Vicky systems. If it had been, I might have responded differently. And then again, I might not. I'm perverse that way. I am all for complex models that function below the level of player-interaction, in which the player retains simple controls.

And yes, I recall the discussions we've had on this issue before and - pardon me - just like I've always erred on the side of simplicity of use and on the "it is a game in which the player ORDERS stuff to happen, realism taking a safe back seat, concentrate on the player rather than the underlying simulation and it will become a better game", you have a history of erring on the side of complexity of use and on the "it is a simulation, in which the player GUIDES development in as realistic an environment as can be reasonably modeled, make it a better simulation and it will become a better game".

I'd support flying elephants* in EU3 if it made for better gameplay.



* Tribal warfare level 42, only available to nations with the Government Type: "Noble Savages".

 

[Mowers]

Hiya, Mowers. It was not obvious from your previous post that what you supported was a (where player control is concerned) very limited version of the CK/Vicky systems. If it had been, I might have responded differently. And then again, I might not. I'm perverse that way. I am all for complex models that function below the level of player-interaction, in which the player retains simple controls.

And yes, I recall the discussions we've had on this issue before and - pardon me - just like I've always erred on the side of simplicity of use and on the "it is a game in which the player ORDERS stuff to happen, realism taking a safe back seat, concentrate on the player rather than the underlying simulation and it will become a better game", you have a history of erring on the side of complexity of use and on the "it is a simulation, in which the player GUIDES development in as realistic an environment as can be reasonably modeled, make it a better simulation and it will become a better game".

I'd support flying elephants* in EU3 if it made for better gameplay.



* Tribal warfare level 42, only available to nations with the Government Type: "Noble Savages".

Yep, I need to better explain myself if I my primary goal of having EU3 take power away from players is coming across as quite the opposite. Like you say, a complex model functioning below the level of player interaction in which the player has simple controls.

There is alot to be said for your approach. Pursuing historical accruacy doesnt make for a great game even if the simulation is correct. I am definitely all for giving the player simple "historical levers" of control and having a nice complex model runing in the background which models "historical problems". A good example being driving a car but only having the wing mirrors, sunroof and rear mirrors for vision. However, I remain some what torn between the various approaches for a number of reasons. Thus will remain highly contradictory for some time despite knowing that your way, is almost certainly the way to go. When I win $500m I will pay a huge team of international scientists to go away and create a model of history and then add on gameplay. Until then I'll follow your approach....sometimes.

Here is a good example of the approach that you suggest but which captures the historical "problems" that I am so keen on. Good solid gameplay that replicates good solid "historical problems.

http://www.volny.cz/tom-cat/dictator/eng/dictator.htm#stahovadlo

Its called Dictator and being like me you might just well remember it or have owned it at some point

The name of this horribly addictive and very simple early 1980s game was to run a small banana republic by balancing out various elements of society agaisnt your own needs.

But you were forever running out of money making it difficult to please everyone in your country. Indeed it was impossible to please everyone which ultimately led to ones demise. I am suggesting a style of gameplay like this. (not quite as extreme I might add)

Yes, its unrealistic and oh so ahistoric, but is it fun? and does it manage to capture the "historical problems"? I think so.

Download and play it for 5 minutes, you'll see what I am talking about.

 

[unmerged(48172)]

did anyone ever play Blood Royale ?

it was a games workshop game about europe with Dynasties

 

[Mowers]

did anyone ever play Blood Royale ?

it was a games workshop game about europe with Dynasties

Yeah alot. indeed I rewrote the rules several times.

Ck captured the basis of that but failed to capitalise on it and make it "fun" or give it any depth. But my understanding was that was not entirely the fault of paradox.

 

[Smirfy]

Yeah alot. indeed I rewrote the rules several times.

Ck captured the basis of that but failed to capitalise on it and make it "fun" or give it any depth. But my understanding was that was not entirely the fault of paradox.

The trouble with CK was that somebody forgot to put in a game

 

[Mowers]

The trouble with CK was that somebody forgot to put in a game

LMAO

Harsh but not entirely untrue.

Erm, it was a good idea and got me really excited at first because it seemed it might be like blood royale on crack but 2, make it 4, things really irked me

1) I find it difficult to really care about my court, its difficult to build up relations with them. They either own something or nothing there is no inbetween. They didnt develop enough personality for me to interact with them or between themselves.

2) The regional infrastructure building seemed a pointless feature that didnt really add anything to the game.

3) Assasinations? WTF?

4) There was no interaction between states or regions. It was either you want an alliance or we want war. There was no talking to them.

 

[Smirfy]

I loved the tech spread which I thought would simulate the Reniasance in EUIII quite well but apart from that little grabed me and features like an eternal partner hunt caused my abandonment.

I think with CK if they had of done the Wars of the Roses or a Campaign based solely in France or Spain things would have worked better but thats just me

 

[Mowers]

I loved the tech spread which I thought would simulate the Reniasance in EUIII quite well but apart from that little grabed me and features like an eternal partner hunt caused my abandonment.

I think with CK if they hand of done the Wars of the Roses or a Campaign based solely in France or Spain things would have worked better but thats just me

Yeah tech spread was definitely cool, I'd really like to see a varient of that explored for implemetation for EU2.

They calmed down the wedding hunt - the lack of a list etc or a good indication from the computer left me watching chick flicks till I got a handle on things. That everyone simply replied "Non" for the first couple of patches left me somewhat bewildered.

 

[arcorelli]

BTW, in all this talk about dynasties what are we going to do with Republics? Invent another altogether different model? (Because Venice and NL are popular countries to play, so the CK solution -repubics can't be played- will not work). I do not think that De Witt was important due to dynastic issues after all.

 

[unmerged(27108)]

Yeah tech spread was definitely cool, I'd really like to see a varient of that explored for implemetation for EU2.

Me too.

edit - but for eu3. not eu2

 

[unmerged(9829)]

Does anyone know if there will be anything along the lines of dynasties like in CK? For instance, a temporary insanity of monarch event actually being represented by a character trait, good advisors helping your monarch stats, you getting to select who enters in "royal marriages," etc.

EDIT: I guess the better question would be, "does anyone 'think?'"

I know this may have already been suggested, but why not make it an option? Historical Monarchs or Dynasty setting...

 

[joriandrake]

I know this may have already been suggested, but why not make it an option? Historical Monarchs or Dynasty setting...

With possible ahistoric ones.
If that happens, next rulers stats shoud be random, and maybe changed with some events (like education)

 

[Rythin]

I would love to see dynasties. Actually, I would love to have THE WHOLE dynasty system implemented from CK (well, maybe apart from tons of courtiers to look after). That would definately be a wonderful asset of a game.

 

[unmerged(7415)]

I think that EU3 will keep its predetermined list of rulers, but that each of these will have traits similar to those in CK. That would be nice, I think.

A non-deterministic dynastical system has not been mentioned and would constitute a major departure from past versions of the game. Do not misunderstand me, I really love CK, but the timeframe dictates a decreasing importance of blood clans and a greater importance on linguistic based nation states.