Europa Universalis IV – Development Diary 3 – Your envoys are awaiting your orders!

[unmerged(303218)]

Because it's not professional. As long as we have start-at-any-date as a feature we need to support all major features through-out the game. When that's not feasible - like Victoria II or HoI3 - we have to stick to a small amount of bookmarks.

Would doing a low amount of research (small amount of bookmarks, not even necessarily the exact same everywhere) and then simply weighted-averaging them be more professional and a good solution?

For example, let's say there are two bookmarks, A and B.
At A, the composition is as follows: (100%; 0%; 0%)*
At B, the composition is as follows: (0%; 67%; 33%)*
Halfway between A and B, the composition is calculated to be the the following, and rounded as necessary: (50%; 33%; 17%)
At the third of the interval, closer to A: (67%; 22%; 11%), rounded as required.
At the third of the interval, closer to B: (33%; 45%; 22%) and approximated.

I guess it is good enough to approximate any changes occurring, is professional enough and doesn't require so much painstaking research, only a fraction.

*: assuming that these values can be represented accurately. If not, then obviously the actual values would be different, in order to be represented by the system's resolution.

Edit: I think it's sane to assume that any change between any two adjacent bookmarks was monotonic, or at least approximately monotonic enough that it didn't leave the interval between the representations of the adjacent bookmarks.
Thus the above solution to the problem couldn't cause severe reality errors, while eliminating both the problem of unprofessionality and the problem of research overload.

Furthermore, if in some regions and times the actual value does deviate enough that it does leave the interval between the two bookmarks, then the addition of another between these should not be too hard (possibly even to modders). That way the problem could be handled once more with the addition of just another single bookmark for the single exceptional province. But I assume that this would be a rare occurrence as a deviation of well over 11% is unlikely.

 

[Evie HJ]

Of course, even at the bookmarks, the compositions are (at best) very rough estimates, so I'm not sure the PAradox people would feel this idea really address their concerns. But then again, they've used rough estimates for many other factors before, you're right about that.

 

[Merrick Chance']

What a mod can do and what a game can do are two very different things

Is not true. Mods and games aren't very different things--mods arise out of games and use the same systems as those games. Your argument would be like saying that it would have been unfeasible for Half Life to have bullets that shot through walls, because Counterstrike did that and Counterstrike was a mod of Half Life.

A mod is a change in a base game in order to add some mechanics (Magna Mundi, VIP, Arsenal of Democracy), or in order to simulate different events (Counterstrike, Miscmods, Team Fortress). You could easily argue that 'what a mod can do and what a game can do are very different things' when talking about the second kind of mod--but no one's asking for EU4 to have a Dark Continent scenario.

The first kind of mod has more in common with an expansion than it does with the second kind of mod--it adds functions in order to promote the mod's/dev's sense of balance, historicity, or just the fun-level of the game. No one's arguing that Papal Influence (which, by the way, is way, way harder to quantify than religious minorities), or auto-send functions, or heirs, shouldn't be included in EU4 because 'what an expansion can do and what a game can do are two very different things' because such an argument would fall flat on its face.

Now, there are segments of the EU3 expansions that some people didn't like and are arguing shouldn't be included--the Shogun system, the Horde System, and the Chinese faction system are 3 examples. But no one's arguing that they aren't feasible.

 

[Evie HJ]

Your argument would be like saying that it would have been unfeasible for Half Life to have bullets that shot through walls, because Counterstrike did that and Counterstrike was a mod of Half Life.

No, it wouldn't be.

I said TWICE AT LEAST that "This does not mean it's impossible". Explicitly. In so many words. How is that point still unclear to you?

What, exactly, is it going to take for the lot of you to stop putting words in my mouth? God himself from on high telling you "HE FREAKING DIDN'T SAY THAT?".

As for the more general idea,

Modmakers
1)Don't have to worry about turning a profit.
2)Don't have to worry about meeting deadlines
3)Don't have to worry (much) about public relations
4)Don't have to worry about making the actual underlying architecture of the game work.
5)Don't have to worry about the difference between beta-testing and the release
6)Don't have to worry about even-handed approach, and can afford to focus on only the part of the game they care about.

Add all of these together, and you have modmaking and gamemaking being two extremely different things. What's feasible in one may or may not (see? MAY or MAY NOT.) be feasible in the other, and therefore cannot be used as PROOF of what is feasible (or not).

(In turn, gamemakers, having access to the source code, can do things modmakers cannot do).

 

[Merrick Chance']

And I didn't say impossible.

 

[Captain Gars]

It's not like there isn't precedent for that sort of thing though, armies and navies are automatically generated rather than placed based on their historical locations/sizes. This is, I assume, for the same reason of researching army locations being too time-consuming.

Yes, to some degree (although many of the systems in EU is abstracted in a way that it would give weird results if we gave countries exact historical armies), but while you can generate the number of troops you get you can't really do that for religious minorities.

 

[Evie HJ]

And I didn't say impossible.

I never said "unfeasible" either.

I said that it's not proof of feasibility. Nothing more, nothing less. It proves nothing, either way. It may be feasible, unfeasible, possible or impossible. I don't know, you don't know, Chambozzer doesn't know, Stephen T doesn't know. The only person who posted recently in this thread who might know what's feasible (or not) in EU is Captain Gars.

But what Magma Mundi the Mod did is not proof either way.

 

[Merrick Chance']

Alright. Well I'm not saying that EU4 should craft the Magna Mundi system on to it.

I'm saying that we already have an instance where a religious minorities system has been created in a way that adds balance and strategic choice to the game.

We can keep on arguing (with increasing rudeness) about whether or not Magna Mundi is even allowed as evidence towards the claim that a religious minorities system could work, but that's sidetracking the argument. We have an instance where it has been worked out, we we know that it can be done, and we have some idea about how it could be done. We don't know whether it's feasible or not (because of your argument about the incompatibility of mods and games).

But I don't see how the addition of a religious minorities system to EU4 would hurt sales, piss people off (beyond people who probably wouldn't be buying the game anyway), or hurt the underlying system of the game (as the religious minorities system as implemented by MM didn't even use the source code and rarely brought up problems). I could see arguments for deadlines, but du Blois' suggestion of a bookmarks system with approximated religious minorities would lower the workload (plus, IIRC, there haven't been 'start at any date you want' games made by Pdox since EU3. Am I right in this?)

On the plus side, we then have a system that adds diminishing returns to the game (as I said), and which balances conquests and makes creating a ridiculously anachronistic empire in the early game far more difficult.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Indeed - it has been done by amateurs. It works despite mod being a mere workaround where engine lacks. It's fun, it adds to strategic depth and decision making. It's also far more balanced, and leading to more realistic results.

So other than lack of resources to do research on minorities, there's no excuse why paradox could not implement some kind of religious minority system.

I would not be original, but I bet that time spent on making DHEs would surely be enough to do proper religious research.

 

[unmerged(303218)]

Marquis d blois:

My argument - my sole argument - is that the fact that a mod had a feature is NOT proof that this feature is feasible or possible in a game. That's all, the full extent, and everything I am saying. NOTHING ELSE.

Too bad for you, as the only argument of yours is false.

You see, the developers have all the tools the modders have, and even more. Since an overabundance of ways to create a feature cannot make the creation of the feature impossible (I guess we can agree on that) then it is simply impossible that something which could be done (feasible, possible) in a mod would not be feasible/possible in a game.

Thus, the fact that something could be done in a mod IS proof that the same can be done by the developers of that game.

That's it, that's all. The rest is your own personal fantasy. Please stop substituting it for my words.

The difference of goals a game must achieve and a mod should achieve has nothing to do with what is possible in creating a game or creating a mod.
You are purposefully mixing up these two things.

I said that it's not proof of feasibility. Nothing more, nothing less. It proves nothing, either way. It may be feasible, unfeasible, possible or impossible. I don't know, you don't know, Chambozzer doesn't know, Stephen T doesn't know. The only person who posted recently in this thread who might know what's feasible (or not) in EU is Captain Gars.

There are two problems.
1) If it doesn't prove anything either way, then why are you so vehemently arguing with a mere assumption?
2) As you can see above, even the argument doesn't stand, and it fails exactly on the situation you are trying to use it on.

If you wanted to prove that a mod cannot do what a game could do, the argument would be shaky but not false.
If you argued that a game could do what a mod can do, the argument would be true.
If you tried to prove that a mod can do what a game can, the argument would again be shaky but not false.
However, trying to prove that a game cannot do what a mod can, the argument is false.

 

[Evie HJ]

I certainly won't disagree that having this sort of detail in the game would, in a vacuum, make it a more detailed and immersive game than what we have right now.
I also won't disagree that the current conversion system *really* needs improved.

I still am not convinced that the workload involved in implementing a specific percentage system, even with de Blois' proposal, would be that low, but that, as I noted earlier, is a personal feeling on the matter. And if the workload is not that low, I question what they would have to sacrifice to put together enough work to add a percentage system. Religion matters, yes, but so do many other things, and there are many game features that are more interactive and defining of a good game than the religious aspect.

(The religious aspect, of course, still matters).

Marquis d blois :
Fine, substitute feasible for possible then. What's feasible in a game and what's feasible in a mod are two very different beast, one cannot prove the other, and since Paradox is not going to put something unfeasible in their game, the difference between feasible and possible is a moot point, and the fact that Magna Mundi prove (or does not prove) the possibility of adding religious minority is still meaningless.

But if your argument is truly that anything that is feasible to modmakers is feasible to gamemakers, despite all the key differences between the two, then I don't know what to tell you. To think that two things that face very different limitations (as modmaking and gamemaking do) can be compared directly is simply illogical to me.

 

[George LeS]

Yes, to some degree (although many of the systems in EU is abstracted in a way that it would give weird results if we gave countries exact historical armies), but while you can generate the number of troops you get you can't really do that for religious minorities.

Sorry, I have to jump in on this argument. It is simply ridiculous to imply that you would get "weird[er] results" with exact historical armies, than we do now with navies. Late game starts put major British fleets in Hudson's Bay and West Australia. And I have never found a load date which includes a French fleet in the Med. There are plenty more like that. Try loading 1789. Look at the navies of the world's big ship totals:

GBR: 10 (at least they're #1)
USA: 9 (????)
RFR & SPA: 5 each (Gee, as an American I am delighted we are so close to a 2-power standard here)

Those are followed by a 4 way tie, with 3 each. And the Netherlands (the actual #4 navy)? None. Zilch.

Or try the 2nd Dutch war, which will start with this ratio of bigs: RN: 18 NED: 1. (de Ruyter must be way underrated. 20-20-20 is more like it.)

 

[MilosM]

I would not be original, but I bet that time spent on making DHEs would surely be enough to do proper religious research.

You really hate those DHE's, I bet you wil mod them out as soon you get your hands on the game.

 

[Chamboozer]

but while you can generate the number of troops you get you can't really do that for religious minorities.

You're right of course, unless you were to go with Marquis d Blois' idea of having them gradually change at a fixed rate between the bookmarks, though even that I suppose would require some research.

The overall point I was making was there certainly are systems in the game not optimized to function properly on day 1, hence the game is dramatically different when choosing between a random country in 1399 and a random country after 10 years of gameplay. No one says Paradox is unprofessional because of that, and I doubt many people would say such a thing if religious minorities were implemented as a pure game mechanic rather than historical feature. Certainly no one would disagree that a game with minoities is more accurate and plausible than one without.

Another example of a purely gameplay feature which is not represented in the history files are loans.

I'm assuming after so much debate Paradox must be dead set on not including a minority system. My question then is, will anything else be implemented in the game to slow down religious conversion to more reasonable levels?

 

[unmerged(63836)]

You really hate those DHE's, I bet you wil mod them out as soon you get your hands on the game.

Well, who knows. I don't like idea of implementing them, but maybe they would not be as bad. I would certainly prefer in-depth religious system over some historical events.

 

[Captain Gars]

Sorry, I have to jump in on this argument. It is simply ridiculous to imply that you would get "weird[er] results" with exact historical armies, than we do now with navies.

Not it's not. Because most armies through this period where not standing armies, which is what we use in the game. Which means that at a certain date in history you could find two countries of similar size - one at peace with only a few garrison troops and the other with 50,000 men raised for war. Instead when generating them, one would get 10,000, the other 12,000 - and we have a working game. Not to say that the generating mechanisms can't be improved, and I hope to get time to rebalance some of the bookmarks for instance.

 

[Captain Gars]

If you want to continue to discuss religious minorities - do so in a separate thread as this one is the Dev Diary for envoys - and this discussion has gone off-topic a long time ago.

 

[unmerged(303218)]

I certainly won't disagree that having this sort of detail in the game would, in a vacuum, make it a more detailed and immersive game than what we have right now.
I also won't disagree that the current conversion system *really* needs improved.

I still am not convinced that the workload involved in implementing a specific percentage system, even with de Blois' proposal, would be that low, but that, as I noted earlier, is a personal feeling on the matter. And if the workload is not that low, I question what they would have to sacrifice to put together enough work to add a percentage system. Religion matters, yes, but so do many other things, and there are many game features that are more interactive and defining of a good game than the religious aspect.

(The religious aspect, of course, still matters).

No one is talking about a percentage system anymore as the way to go. By now, it would appear that a system with no more than 9 'slots' is the most popular one amongst those who don't support the old one of a single religion per province. And since you here explicitly state that you find the old system inferior to the proposal, I see that really the only reason you keep opposing it is that you are concerned about its feasibility.

Relax: what amateurs could do with the introduction of certainly no more than 4 province flags (copy&paste times the number of religions) cannot concievably take a lot of work from professional coders. There is really no need to fear anything else gets left out because the developers include this system.

Marquis d blois :
Fine, substitute feasible for possible then. What's feasible in a game and what's feasible in a mod are two very different beast, one cannot prove the other, and since Paradox is not going to put something unfeasible in their game, the difference between feasible and possible is a moot point, and the fact that Magna Mundi prove (or does not prove) the possibility of adding religious minority is still meaningless.

But if your argument is truly that anything that is feasible to modmakers is feasible to gamemakers, despite all the key differences between the two, then I don't know what to tell you. To think that two things that face very different limitations (as modmaking and gamemaking do) can be compared directly is simply illogical to me.

I think you don't mean feasible or possible but whether implementing something is a sound choice or not. Then your posts start making sense, however in the case of something proven to be working well there is little reason to assume a simple copy of its code would make a bad system.

Clearly Paradox developers are sane people and make sane decisions, so including a system which would be completely new to not only the series but any of their strategy games is not highly likely. On the other hand, including something which clearly worked well in the previous edition of EU, doesn't seem too far-fetched: the background game remains largely the same, thus the system will work in a manner very similar it works in the previous edition.
Furthermore, may I add the fact that the developers have introduced radically new ideas every now and then when making sequels - and the result was rarely a failure. It might not have worked up to the expectations regarding it, but it worked just well enough that it could be patched up to work properly. Thus even the drastic novelty of an idea isn't grounds to discard it as one which certainly doesn't make it into a sequel.

---

Edit: sorry for the late edit, and sorry for submitting this post after Captain Gars' one. But since I started typing it before I had a chance to see it, please excuse me for this mistake.

 

[Fawr]

The more I think about the new envoy system the more I think it gets away from the flaws in the old one.

I just hope that there are things a player can do to get more envoys (Ideas/buildings/governments/decisions/etc). They can be hard things, but I find it fustrating when I hit a hard limit which is beyond my control.