EUIV as an accurate simulator?

[Chaingun]

There is no such thing as a history simulator.

You can't reset the variables and rerun the experiment. Nothing is testable or repeatable. You can't even identify the factors: 'their various factors' just doesn't cut it. History is not a science, it is interpretation and extrapolation from a limited set of source material (which may or may not be congruent with or useful in identifying what actually happened). Often the author and the intended audience have as much influence on the work as the source material.

I don't think you can say it's not possible to create a historical simulation. Wikipedia: "Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time." However, depending on the scope it's very difficult or more likely impossible to validate it which makes it useless for scientific and academic purposes.

 

[randomguy123]

no its a game balanced around multiplayer which nobody plays anyway

 

[Trin Tragula]

EU tries its very best to give an immersing experience but it is not intended to be a simulator and I would not recommend to use it as such

 

[OldmansHQ]

Greetings,

I have been conducting a research project having to do with predicting the downfall of countries. To help prove this and give accurate predictions I looked towards things that could simulate countries and their various factors accurately and with a precise measure of time. I've known and played Europa Universalis along with Crusader Kings for some time now and I felt that EUIV was able to give the most accurate and natural simulation of countries, the aspects of running them, and their behavior. With its uncanny simulation of history, I would then take countries and add/eliminate factors that may cause its downfall, then measure the time it takes to fall.

However, before I proceed, I have questions about the more hidden mechanics of the game, things that would hinder an accurate representation of history. Since I cannot enter in direct contact with Paradox via email I figured this would be the next best thing.

If you've made it this far and are still interested in this topic, here are some of the questions I have:

Is this a good simulator to use? Would it do well with providing accurate information on the downfall of countries?
Is there a matter of random factoring when simply observing games that I should be aware of? (given that all the options are set to as historical as possible)
Is there a better way to directly contact Paradox developers or spokespeople?

That's all for now, I will likely update this with more questions if this receives any attention.

Back when EU4 was just released I was writing a lengthy history essay, and asked a similar question here on the form. Ultimately, the people convinced not to use EU4 as one of my sources, specifically because the developers use Wikipedia as their main source, which in turn is considered not credible. Mind you, I used a tonne of sources including books. In retrospective, I should have used the game as an interesting, albeit not credible representation of history, but I would never base the entire piece around it. For instance, the conditions that brought Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to ruin can never ever be reproduced. That's why in the game the country usually dominates central and eastern Europe until the very end, whereas in history the country existed only in name for a long time, and just before 19th century was erased altogether.

Just read the yellow quote at the bottom of my signature. It's from someone that used to lead the design of EU4. That should explain all.

 

[Trin Tragula]

specifically because the developers use Wikipedia as their main source,

This isn't really true mind. But it'd be very complicated to go through all reference material we do use so I still agree with your assessment. EU does not, and does not try to, meet academic standards for research. This is what allows us to cover some parts of the map at all in the first place and for a game I think we have a pretty good level of detail but it's certainly not to be used as reference material for research (unless what you're researching is research for games in the first place ).

EDIT: What's not true is that wiki is the main source. We do use wiki for quick reference on a number of things, and for that it works quite well IMO. But we're well aware of its limitations. I think for one thing you'll find we cover things that wiki has no mention of

It's funny to see how the internet perpetuates information in some ways. I am pretty sure EU has in some cases influenced online pages on things. For one thing I've seen the flag I personally made for Bahmanis back when I was a modder (and which is now in the main game since release) appear on sites on the net with no reference and a claim that it is indeed their royal flag.

As I know what it's based on I know that it's very unlikely that someone decided on using the same symbol as I did and then color it the same way.

 

[OldmansHQ]

This isn't really true mind. But it'd be very complicated to go through all reference material we do use so I still agree with your assessment. This does not, and does not try to, meet academic standards for research. This is what allows us to cover some parts of the map at all in the first place and for a game I think we have a pretty good level of detail but it's certainly not to be used as reference material for research (unless what you're researching is research for games in the first place ).

EDIT: What's not true is that wiki is the main source. We do use wiki for quick reference on a number of things, and for that it works quite well IMO. But we're well aware of its limitations. I think for one thing you'll find we cover things that wiki has no mention of

It's funny to see how the internet perpetuates information in some ways. I am pretty sure EU has in some cases influenced online pages on things. For one thing I've seen the flag I personally made for Bahmanis back when I was a modder (and which is now in the main game since release) appear on sites on the net with no reference and a claim that it is indeed their royal flag.

As I know what it's based on I know that it's very unlikely that someone decided on using the same symbol as I did and then color it the same way.

Was it always the case, that Wikipedia wasn't the main source, or did that change over time? I assumed that you used countless random sources. Anything that is accessible and has the specific information you're looking for, since academic standards are not important, but the sheer quantity of used information is insane.

Good luck later today! I wonder who you're going to end up playing as. Hopefully no one near Siberia .

Ohh I forgot, I edited slightly my previous post...

 

[Trin Tragula]

Wiz quote is still very relevant I would say It's a balance act though.