EU4 - Art of War - Dev Diary 10 - Achievements, Auto Transport and South America

  • 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.
To call something wasteful implies there's something to be wasted when the primary goal of playing any video game is to have fun.

Mario brothers, Tetris, Asteroids,

Simply add a timer and levels and call it something else with fancier graphics, more mechanics, longer time to think and so forth, as you like, but if the game is being played to *achieve* something, it is about efficiency.

Saying "wasteful" was just, perhaps a bad, way of saying:

"I, we, others, play the game to maximize the *efficiency* of our choices to maximize our outcomes in a limited timeframe"

Thus, if your goal, as it is with many people and many if not most video games, is to essentially become as efficient as you can in achieving the most optimal outcome in making a goal.

That's kind of the nature of any game, for *some* and saying "wasteful" was just a more shorthand way of saying this.
 
Mario brothers, Tetris, Asteroids,

Simply add a timer and levels and call it something else with fancier graphics, more mechanics, longer time to think and so forth, as you like, but if the game is being played to *achieve* something, it is about efficiency.

Saying "wasteful" was just, perhaps a bad, way of saying:

"I, we, others, play the game to maximize the *efficiency* of our choices to maximize our outcomes in a limited timeframe"

Thus, if your goal, as it is with many people and many if not most video games, is to essentially become as efficient as you can in achieving the most optimal outcome in making a goal.

That's kind of the nature of any game, for *some* and saying "wasteful" was just a more shorthand way of saying this.

You're basically saying that the best way or the inevitable way that people will play games is speedrun style and anyone who doesn't play this way is being wasteful?
 
I find if I try to min max every decision it lowers the 'fun' element of the game. I could play chess to a decent level but I can't say I ever had 'fun' playing it. Different brain I guess. I welcome optimisations and more transparency in the game as long as immersion and the ability to create a narrative as you play isn't lost. Too much stress in real life without adding min/max frustrations in your downtime too :)
 
A city named Samar actually appears on Italian maps of XIV century. Nevertheless, Penza and Saratov are still around as I can see.
On the other hand Kanadey was founded in XVIII century and it's Tatar name is Kınadı.


Saratov in Tatar is called Sarıtaw (literally "Yellow hill"), Tsaritsyn - Sarısu (Yellow water), Simbirsk should be Sember, Azov should be Azaq and Astrakhan should be spelled as Ästerxan, although a more historical name is Xacitarxan.
And you have a typo - it should be Yar Çallı, it's actually the Tatar name for Naberezhnye Chelny, a settlement founded in 1626. A better choice for the name of the area should probably be Alabuğa.
And names like Lipetsk, Voronezh, Tambov, Borisoglebsk or Kuban don't sound Tatar at all.
I'm a Tatar, so I should know. :)

What is Etkara? Google can't find it.


That's a stereotype, Golden Horde had many cities, and there are some academic works about them, for example "G. A. Fyodorov-Davydov [Fedorov-Davydov] , The Culture of the Golden Horde Cities, trans. H. Bartlett Wells, Oxford, BAR International Series, 1984" :)
Though by XV century they were not exactly at their peak, thanks to Timur.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Red Khan.

While the Original Post said that Penza and Saratov would be appropriately name-changed to avoid anachronism, they're still unchanged by the latest-build pictures.

Also, it is almost demeaning to say that Russia brought civilization to the steppes. It's again the age-old argument that pastoralist nomadic civilization wasn't a civilization, despite extensive forensic, archaelogical evidence of kurgan dig sites and large important cities like Sarai, Urgench, Khiva, Otrar (original Farab before, from whence Al Farabi hailed from).

You're right though Red Khan. Thanks to Timur and even the initial conquests of Temujin, many of these cities were severely depopulated and thus lost some of that nomadic pastoralist and settler civilization culture.

However, it's just offensive to state that Russia brought "civilization" to the steppes. Russia may have brought a form of European civilization, but even that I would strongly argue against. I see Muscovy just being another opportunistic Khanate, that just happened to be a Tsardom and happened to be Orthodox. Thus, Muscovy acted geopolitically just as any other Khanate and actually utilized the same claims from Golden Horde and Kazan lineage to annex these territories by Tatar blood among Russian nobility and boyars.

When one looks at Muscovy as just the most successful Khanate who pressed the old Rus Khaganate claims the best and more forcefully, then history makes much more sense that Russia really is just a Turanian or Eurasian polity, always has been and always will be. Russia won't be an entirely European or entirely Asian polity. Whenever a leader, whether Mongol Khublai Khan of Yuan Dynasty of China from Beijing leaned Russia more into Asian direction or Russian Peter the Great from St. Petersburg leaning Russia into more European direction, Russia still balances back to being a Eurasian or Turanian polity.

The only way Russia is to survive as a single state without ethnic or religious division is to rebrand the "Russian" Federation as a fully internationalist Eurasian or Turanian Federation, where power is shared by meritocracy not by oligarchy and there is a chance that the supreme leader would be equally a Slav or a Turk. Otherwise, by stating that the Russian majority will always be leaders... will always alienate the rest of the Turks in the mostly Turkic federated states from Tatarstan to Bashkortostan, Sibir, Chuvashia, Khalmykia, Yakutia(Saha), Chukcha, Altai, Kurgan, Tyumen, etc. Most of the "large" size of Russia is due to these Turkic lands. Otherwise, ethnic Russia is then mostly European, yes. By insisting on ethnic Russian hegemony and chauvinism of increasingly militarized Cossacks, the government of Russian Federation is further alienating and sowing itself the seeds for ethnic and religious separatism among mostly Turkic and Muslim federated states.

Why was Soviet Union successful in uniting the Slavs and Turks? Because as "dedushka Lenin" was insisting always on an international agenda and saw ethnic Russian nationalism as the greatest threat to this soviet agenda. Due to Soviet Union's internationalism, at least initial, the Turks bought into the idea, along with the Slavs. Otherwise, there would have been greater ethnic and religious resistance.
 
Last edited: