Events that did happen that rarely or never happen in game

[macd21]

You realise that the thing that already causes an Ottoman, Russia alliance is mutual rivals right?

Which is why the game needs an additional malus to discourage it.

 

[Aries666]

Which is why the game needs an additional malus to discourage it.

Why would you want to prevent the AI from protecting itself by allying the enemy of its enemy it makes no sense. Put simply if all of Poland, Ottoman and Muscovy were controlled by humans would you also want to prevent them from making strategic alliances too?

 

[macd21]

Why would you want to prevent the AI from protecting itself by allying the enemy of its enemy it makes no sense. Put simply if all of Poland, Ottoman and Muscovy were controlled by humans would you also want to prevent them from making strategic alliances too?

Because in this case the enemy of its enemy is another enemy. The PLC existed in the real world, defeated both Russia and the Ottomans at various times, yet the two were not able to overcome their enmity to ally.
AI Ottomans and Russians should only ally rarely, when the PLC (or other power) has kicked the shit out of them both. Whereas now they ally themselves more often than not.

I don't want historical railroading, but I do want realistic outcomes and history is a good gauge of what is realistic. Currently under historical conditions, Russia and the Turks end up forming an alliance and eating the PLC, almost never rivalling each other and duking it out as they did historically. This is because the game doesn't account for (or undervalues) the factors that made them rivals in the RW. The fact that they have a mutual enemy ends up trumping everything else.

 

[Viperswhip]

If you want to implement what historically happened, then prohibit Castile/Aragon/Spain, to colonize/conquer anything between Brazil and Phillipines. Castile was forbidden to take any posession in Africa (south of the Canary Islands), Arabia, India, Indonesia, China, and Australia. That's the historical Treaty of Tordesillas, that complemented the already signed Treaty of Alcaçovas.
Also, if Castile/Spain has gold provinces on the new world, it should get a disaster that puts it's inflation over the top to cripple them to the knees.

Railroading is non-sensical in a sandbox game, imo.

Well, the primary difference between what happened to Spain and what happens in this game is that the game forces money to go to infrastructure, troops or ships, the game does not allow corruption on the scale that actually happened. Spain would have been totally fine if constrained by EU4 game mechanics.

 

[LS22]

However its important to note historical rival modifier exists between several European countries (namely Austria-France), that makes it impossible to secure an Alliance...AND CANNOT EVER BE REMOVED!

Those kind of modifiers are absolute bs. Nations that spent the centuries before 1444 in constant wars are given historical friend modifiers. Nations that never engaged in war before 1444 are given historical rival modifier.

 

[LS22]

Because in this case the enemy of its enemy is another enemy. The PLC existed in the real world, defeated both Russia and the Ottomans at various times, yet the two were not able to overcome their enmity to ally.
AI Ottomans and Russians should only ally rarely, when the PLC (or other power) has kicked the **** out of them both. Whereas now they ally themselves more often than not.

I don't want historical railroading, but I do want realistic outcomes and history is a good gauge of what is realistic. Currently under historical conditions, Russia and the Turks end up forming an alliance and eating the PLC, almost never rivalling each other and duking it out as they did historically. This is because the game doesn't account for (or undervalues) the factors that made them rivals in the RW. The fact that they have a mutual enemy ends up trumping everything else.

You don't want railroading, but want an outcome that resembles real history. You're confliting with yourself.

 

[LS22]

Well, the primary difference between what happened to Spain and what happens in this game is that the game forces money to go to infrastructure, troops or ships, the game does not allow corruption on the scale that actually happened. Spain would have been totally fine if constrained by EU4 game mechanics.

So? Ain't railroading events forcing an outcome that the game mechanics wouldn't allow? Just make an event that fires in the 18th century that puts spain's inflation at 20% and a +200% to drop the inflation cost. Or players only want railroading for op events?

 

[zukodark]

Gold mines and treasure fleet can already cause tons of inflation if not managed properly. It is not needed to have a special event.

 

[Viperswhip]

So? Ain't railroading events forcing an outcome that the game mechanics wouldn't allow? Just make an event that fires in the 18th century that puts spain's inflation at 20% and a +200% to drop the inflation cost. Or players only want railroading for op events?

I don't think any of us are asking for railroading, the thread is about events that DID happen that rarely happen in the game, there is no value judgement in that title one way or the other, it's a fact based discussion. Myself, I am quite happy with where Castile is, but I have been since release, and Byz, well, let's not discuss that. So, ya, I simply noted that when Spain does get the Inheritance, in AI hands no less, it rarely suffers the Dutch revolts that caused Spain to lose that territory in real life.

Your point was also accurate, Spain in game does not suffer from the over inflation caused by massive corruption, but then no country does, it shouldn't be limited to Spain if you introduce a new mechanic, present mechanics do not allow for the disastrous policy that destroyed Spain.

 

[macd21]

You don't want railroading, but want an outcome that resembles real history. You're confliting with yourself.

That's not what I said at all. The game doesn't have to have a historical outcome, but history should inform what happens in the game. If a country that did well in history collapses in every game, if an OPM always ends up becoming a regional powerhouse, if historical enemies always end up becoming best buddies, then something is wrong - the game is missing a factor that influenced real world history. Certain countries should generally succeed, others fail etc, because the same factors that made them succeed or fail in the real world should be present in the game.

 

[Viperswhip]

That's not what I said at all. The game doesn't have to have a historical outcome, but history should inform what happens in the game. If a country that did well in history collapses in every game, if an OPM always ends up becoming a regional powerhouse, if historical enemies always end up becoming best buddies, then something is wrong - the game is missing a factor that influenced real world history. Certain countries should generally succeed, others fail etc, because the same factors that made them succeed or fail in the real world should be present in the game.

So, in Observer mode you'd like to have the real world reflected what % of the time?

 

[ashmizen]

One word:

QING

 

[LS22]

That's not what I said at all. The game doesn't have to have a historical outcome, but history should inform what happens in the game. If a country that did well in history collapses in every game, if an OPM always ends up becoming a regional powerhouse, if historical enemies always end up becoming best buddies, then something is wrong - the game is missing a factor that influenced real world history. Certain countries should generally succeed, others fail etc, because the same factors that made them succeed or fail in the real world should be present in the game.

Yes. What's wrong, imo, is your perception that the game must emulate during 400 years what happened in history. The game, is only about an historical setup, with some abstracted mechanics, that once you hit the unpause button, has absolutelly no intention of replicating history. Nor, should it. The AI should decide based on the game's world, not the historical world. Puting an arbitrary boundary of what the AI can or can't based on history books, will only make the game absolutelly predictable, with a higher chance of the world in 1821 being mostly equal between different games. No, thank you.
As for the successfull and failing nations, you already have that in the game.

 

[ywxiao]

One word:

QING

We are lacking events that lead up to this point, IE war with Oirat, naval battles with Portugal and Dutch, Spanish silver problems, Imjin war, etc. Ming should be required to contest European presence in SEA.

Manchu needs to be able to secure a PU over Mongolia, and integrate when forming Qing.

 

[LS22]

I don't think any of us are asking for railroading, the thread is about events that DID happen that rarely happen in the game, there is no value judgement in that title one way or the other, it's a fact based discussion. Myself, I am quite happy with where Castile is, but I have been since release, and Byz, well, let's not discuss that. So, ya, I simply noted that when Spain does get the Inheritance, in AI hands no less, it rarely suffers the Dutch revolts that caused Spain to lose that territory in real life.

Your point was also accurate, Spain in game does not suffer from the over inflation caused by massive corruption, but then no country does, it shouldn't be limited to Spain if you introduce a new mechanic, present mechanics do not allow for the disastrous policy that destroyed Spain.

I'm talking about Spain because is usually where players complain that there should be more railroading.
About the inflation disaster for Spain, it only feels right that if players complain that there should be more railroading for Spain (or any other nation), they can't be picky about what should or shouldn't be included. They'll get the good and the bad. I mean, they already have 3 of most absurdlly OP events in the game (BI, IW, and Union with Portugal - yes, this last one i never saw it trigger, but them again it's very difficult for the conditions that make it happen to occur), and still complain that it needs more?
And what mechanic allows the Burgundian Inheritance? What mechanic allows the Iberian Wedding?

 

[YuriiH]

If Portugal's monarch dies without an heir,

Well, there is an event already
http://www.eu4wiki.com/Spanish_events#The_Portuguese_Crown

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Which is why the game needs an additional malus to discourage it.

Agreed, this would be within thematic spirit of EU IV too in light of the recent nerf to Papal Turkish relations.

IMO, if Ottos take Constantinople and end up as overlord/protector/ally/Sunni DoF to a slave raiding Tatar Khanate (such as Crimea) or otherwise advance into steppe beyond Genoan territory and Theodoro they should be given historical rival by event. At least if/once Muscovy forms Russia.

 

[GeheimnisMann]

We are lacking events that lead up to this point, IE war with Oirat, naval battles with Portugal and Dutch, Spanish silver problems, Imjin war, etc. Ming should be required to contest European presence in SEA.

Manchu needs to be able to secure a PU over Mongolia, and integrate when forming Qing.

East Asia in general needs rework, it's not as simple as that. Korea should be more powerful and probably have more provinces so an alliance with it to counter Ming would actually be meaningful, Ming should probably have more or bigger rivals/enemies in the area rather than just being everyone's best friend, just something to keep them in check.

 

[macd21]

Yes. What's wrong, imo, is your perception that the game must emulate during 400 years what happened in history. The game, is only about an historical setup, with some abstracted mechanics, that once you hit the unpause button, has absolutelly no intention of replicating history. Nor, should it. The AI should decide based on the game's world, not the historical world. Puting an arbitrary boundary of what the AI can or can't based on history books, will only make the game absolutelly predictable, with a higher chance of the world in 1821 being mostly equal between different games. No, thank you.
As for the successfull and failing nations, you already have that in the game.

I don't want the game to emulate 400 years of history. I have not said that anywhere. A game started in 1444 should not have anything close to real world 1821 borders at the end. But the game, for all that it takes liberties, should be realistic - factors that were impacted real world history should be factors in the game too. There's a reason why the real world Russians and Turks didn't ally to crush the Poles, but those reasons are not sufficiently reflected in the game to stop it from happening. As the game seems incapable of reflecting the real world reasons the two didn't work together, then an event should be included to fix that. But that does not mean that Russia or the Turks can't end up conquering Poland by 1600, or that Poland can't become the HRE, or that the Ottomans can't collapse into warring mini-states etc. But if you see the same ahistorical outcome again and again, something is wrong.

 

[LS22]

I don't want the game to emulate 400 years of history. I have not said that anywhere. A game started in 1444 should not have anything close to real world 1821 borders at the end. But the game, for all that it takes liberties, should be realistic - factors that were impacted real world history should be factors in the game too. There's a reason why the real world Russians and Turks didn't ally to crush the Poles, but those reasons are not sufficiently reflected in the game to stop it from happening. As the game seems incapable of reflecting the real world reasons the two didn't work together, then an event should be included to fix that. But that does not mean that Russia or the Turks can't end up conquering Poland by 1600, or that Poland can't become the HRE, or that the Ottomans can't collapse into warring mini-states etc. But if you see the same ahistorical outcome again and again, something is wrong.

There are some reasons why in-game (specially in mid to late game) "history" takes different paths. The AI will not make stupid and dumb decisions that historical leaders took. The AI will evaluate analistically the situation, instead of going mental because of prejudices, personal prides, and personal animosities, that historical leaders based to take decisions. You can't code the (ir)racional thinking of historical leaders in the game's AI, because if you do, then you'll get a even more stupid and predicable AI.
And picking in your example (Russia and Ottomans), if you put a relation malus between them, then explain why that shouldn't be made for every nation that never allied with each other in the game's timeframe. That's a non-sensical railroading that will act as a forcing hand to keep every game in one single track, from which it can't jump out from.
The game is not about getting to 1821 with a historical outcome. It's impossible to do that. Every nation had tenths of leaders, each with his own abilities, his own way of thinking, his own personal goals, his own vision for his nation. There's only one AI, that "thinks" and "judges" exactly the same way througout the 376 years of the game.