Early end date = new game in development ?

[Lindaegan]

Dynamic Historical Events, like the Iberian wedding

Sure, but there still needs to be more dynamism. In my current GB game the event fired when Castile and Aragon were rivaled to one another. You can guess what happened next - starting at 100% LD, with Austria, Burgundy, and Venice supporting their independence. They took half of Castile a couple years later (I broke my alliance with them once it became clear they could not hold Aragon). Then they got hit by the Civil War disaster (after the "Iberian Wedding," lmao) and remained at techs 5/5/5 until like 1500, lol.

Does this make any sense? Of course the game struggles to capture the impact of people on statehood, but that is always going to be there. Clearly, they shot themselves in the foot for no reason, which is a failure in dynamism.

 

[alexkowal123]

Sure, but there still needs to be more dynamism. In my current GB game the event fired when Castile and Aragon were rivaled to one another. You can guess what happened next - starting at 100% LD, with Austria, Burgundy, and Venice supporting their independence. They took half of Castile a couple years later (I broke my alliance with them once it became clear they could not hold Aragon). Then they got hit by the Civil War disaster (after the "Iberian Wedding," lmao) and remained at techs 5/5/5 until like 1500, lol.

Does this make any sense? Of course the game struggles to capture the impact of people on statehood, but that is always going to be there. Clearly, they shot themselves in the foot for no reason, which is a failure in dynamism.

Agreed, you need more than 2 options. I think the scenario you described is more a criticism of total war. Independence wars should more often be down peacefully than in EU4 I think

 

[Cephei80]

Eh. The sunset invasion came out of nowhere. Neither I nor the AI had any agency in the matter. This hardly affects my central point, and arguably has nothing to do with yours, which is actually sensible.

Again, I don't have an issue with historical events. I dislike them when they don't make any sense.

I did not suggest either of those options; in fact, I agree. But again, if a "historical" event makes no sense in context then why should it fire at all? I am arguing for more dynamism when it comes to these events, nothing more.

Once I played as Foix and conquered the whole of France; but I did not form it. Why would the French Revolution not fire at all in this case? Conversely, in this new game - if I were to play a very humanitarian France, focusing on the internal stability of my nation above all, clearing out the old elites and implementing massively liberal reforms over the period of centuries, should the French Revolution still hit me? If the AI were to do the same, should it still occur?

Which they may find in a history book. Or the Imperator-esque mission trees we will have. Not in scripted historical events that may not make sense in context.

You say historical events doesnt make any sense as if they spawn out of nowhere .
we dont get them until we meet all the conditions for them to happen or manually trigger them so if a historical event happen its because it met the conditions and this mean it make all sense.
there is no single event that does happen out of random with no reason that is not an end game crisis like mongols .
for france , the revolution can be avoided doesnt happen 100% in france but the ottomans have power struggle disasters that lead to a revolution early than the rest. in general it target the most susceptible nation this mean if you play different it wont hit you and thats what i meant by historical relevance where its not 100% scripted to events as they happened but they still happen because they are a landmark .
not wanting to have a revolution at all in your run is like asking to not have crusades in Ck .
the point of PDX games is to relive historical events in a way or another . now if you dont want them and want total freedom its more likely you who should mod the game to avoid those historical events not us who should read a book. the message of the games is clear , playing through a period of time while experiencing events

 

[alexkowal123]

You say historical events doesnt make any sense as if they spawn out of nowhere .
we dont get them until we meet all the conditions for them to happen or manually trigger them so if a historical event happen its because it met the conditions and this mean it make all sense.
there is no single event that does happen out of random with no reason that is not an end game crisis like mongols .
for france , the revolution can be avoided doesnt happen 100% in france but the ottomans have power struggle disasters that lead to a revolution early than the rest. in general it target the most susceptible nation this mean if you play different it wont hit you and thats what i meant by historical relevance where its not 100% scripted to events as they happened but they still happen because they are a landmark .
not wanting to have a revolution at all in your run is like asking to not have crusades in Ck .
the point of PDX games is to relive historical events in a way or another . now if you dont want them and want total freedom its more likely you who should mod the game to avoid those historical events not us who should read a book. the message of the games is clear , playing through a period of time while experiencing events View attachment 1122063

I think he was just talking to me about reading a book, because I’m generally not well read or a voracious reader and that comes through in my comments

 

[Koopatin]

i think the point is, can it happen to any country or only to a single tag?
I am all in favor of historical event flavor for things like Iberian wedding and the French Revolution, but EVERY country under the right circumstances should be able to get every event. Just with generic flavor.

 

[Lindaegan]

not wanting to have a revolution at all in your run is like asking to not have crusades in Ck .

Not really. Is the game called Revolutions Universalis? The revolutions are a very late-game thing, anyway. And I am not saying the Revolution should not occur at all. I am suggesting that they should occur if they make sense.

the point of PDX games is to relive historical events in a way or another

Do not tell anyone what the "point" of a game is. For every opinion you have in one direction there will be four in others. And trust me, lmao, I have never "relived historical events" in any PDX game I have ever played.

To paraphrase someone else, without the cause, there is no effect. Other countries doing something for absolutely no logical reason whatsoever is not fun. It is not historical, it is completely implausible, and non-immersive. It is also annoyingly reductive, and gives you a very binary view of the world. Who knows why things went the way they did? Is that not more interesting to think about, and develop events/flavor around, than "yeah, it happened because it had to"?

not us who should read a book

Why are you so mad about that comment, anyway? We should all be reading historical books to get information on events. Surely we should not rely on PDX flavor text for our historical education.

I think he was just talking to me about reading a book, because I’m generally not well read or a voracious reader and that comes through in my comments

Oh no that's not what I meant babes, lol

I am all in favor of historical event flavor for things like Iberian wedding and the French Revolution, but EVERY country under the right circumstances should be able to get every event. Just with generic flavor.

Yes, exactly. If the Revolution starts in France, you get all your historical flavor text. Again, if you do not know about the French Revolution, you should read about it. You should not get all your information from the flavor text (a certain amount of which is ripped off Wikipedia anyway, not that that's necessarily a bad thing). If the Revolution starts in Spain, you get generic flavor. Maybe you get generic flavor and the actual historical flavor if you want it.


Who is more dynamism hurting, anyway? It helps create a believable world. It helps you immerse yourself in the setting. Because the AI is doing things that make sense in context. That's two pillars right there. What drawbacks can you think of? Certainly it might be more of a pain to create. And it might lead to the entire world feeling same-y, like certain other PDX games. But that is because there the dynamism does not make sense in context. The dynamism exists purely to allow the player to do whatever the want. That is a power fantasy. I want a game where realistic challenges are provided, that branch out in various ways based on the choices you (and others) make, over the course of centuries.

 

[alexkowal123]

i think the point is, can it happen to any country or only to a single tag?
I am all in favor of historical event flavor for things like Iberian wedding and the French Revolution, but EVERY country under the right circumstances should be able to get every event. Just with generic flavor.

Generic flavour is an oxymoron, they’re opposites

 

[alexkowal123]

Oh no that's not what I meant babes, lol

Ahaha I was giving you an off ramp for your comment but you jumped off anyway lol

 

[EU3NOOB]

I never understood this kind of speculation. EU3 went from 1399 to 1821. Why would 1377 to 18XX in EU5 be so hard to believe?

Actually, until Napoleon's Ambition the Startdate was 1789.

 

[ImperatorRoman]

Actually, until Napoleon's Ambition the Startdate was 1789.

I think you mean end date, not start date.

 

[EU3NOOB]

What are the other DHEs in EU4, all I can think of is this and the Poland-Lithuania union.

There's the Burgundy one which partitions Burgundy between France and a certain other tag (historically it would be Austria; but others can qualify).

 

[TitaniumMan91]

Yes, exactly. If the Revolution starts in France, you get all your historical flavor text. Again, if you do not know about the French Revolution, you should read about it. You should not get all your information from the flavor text (a certain amount of which is ripped off Wikipedia anyway, not that that's necessarily a bad thing). If the Revolution starts in Spain, you get generic flavor. Maybe you get generic flavor and the actual historical flavor if you want it.

Counterpoint, I don't want the revolution in France because I haven't read about it but because I have and want to play through those events. I want to try and do better than Napoleon or to play as Austria and strangle the revolution in the crib or bring the US in on the side of France, but the US rarely ever existed in EU4 unless you the player made it happen and the Revolution was as likely to be Persia as it is France. It's a very interesting era and I think it would be fun for a standalone game starting some time in the early to mid 1700s.

 

[Ahmadmltft]

emergent from simulation.

The French revolution became the French revolution, because of historic developments. If said developments would occur in Span, England or a unified Italy/Germany, then it would be happen there.
I would be very, very disappointed with all the changes known so far, if then just a heard-scripted event popped-up contraciting everything

This is the exact line of thinking that led to Victoria 3 being nearly flavorless.simulation is good,but relying solely on simulation in a game that spans 5 centuries isn't good(Johan himself said that)

 

[regne_valencia]

The game will have about 500 year of gameplay.

Sounds good, hope that the game can represent properly each age.