Fantasy Accountability

[Garbon]

Based on various fantasy option discussions, that I've had in the past months...I'm beginning to wonder if we ever plan to have any regulation for events that make it into the fantasy option. At the current moment, it seems that any fantasy event can make it in, making the fantasy option a breeding ground for events that were rejected for the "historical" option.

With it currently being a "anything goes, free-for-all" I fail to see how the fantasy option is relevant to this project. Supposedly, fantasy events explore possible & plausible ahistorical outcomes which would then sort of parallel historical development. However, this is not the case with many fantasy events or proposed ones (that haven't been submitted).

This is not to say that we don't have many good fantasy event chains, I just fear that we have a lack of quality control. Perhaps we should have some sort of guidelines on what sort of fantasy events can make it into this project.

 

[dharper]

Hear, hear!

I certainly support having some kind of regulations - even if they're only principles, it would be nice to have them.

A few suggestions:

1: Fantasy events should be plausible.
If you need more than five lines to justify the event, it may not be plausible! Not every event has to be a 'What-if', but it should be something speculated about by several people (at least).

2: Fantasy events should very rarely affect a game unless a human player is involved.
While playing a fantasy Byzantium, I have no desire to see a fantasy Incan empire colonizing Africa.

3: Fantasy events should follow the rules for other events: balanced choices and not designed purely for the advantage of the player.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

When I made my Iberian fantasy scenario I already abode by those rules :rofl: so I guess I am quite in favor of them.

If those rules come to be, I support that most of the drastic alternate history stuff that is so controversial (Burgundy winning the HYW and surviving, Hungary getting through Mohacs unscathed, big inheritances not taking place) is also moved to fantasy. That way we can have the best of both worlds.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Well i view fantasy events slightly differently. Fantasy is purely impossible, like Aztecs invading and conquering France. FE all those HYW events that deal with non-historic choices and outcomes are all, but the definitiion put out by dharper fantasy.

Any "fantasy" element i agree should not be likely without human involvement, ie just needing to survive to certain date.

As for the balanced part, i agree it should stive for balance, but these are less likely to occur events and like other historic events there are some harsh ones and some benifical ones, some countries have more good than others.

Oh yes, and the Granadan ones are unlikely for the AI, unless its heavily aided and it might take a bit even for a human (unless they are playing an easy game) since they need to go from 2 to 6 and still hold their original provinces to activate.

 

[Garbon]

Well i view fantasy events slightly differently. Fantasy is purely impossible, like Aztecs invading and conquering France.

Why then should we include fantasy events in the official download? Fantasy as you describe it, is quite irrelevant and perhaps even counterproductive to this mod.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Why then should we include fantasy events in the official download? Fantasy as you describe it, is quite irrelevant and perhaps even counterproductive to this mod.

Because there are too many people who like them and like to play them with AGCEEP. However, i believe, unlike historic or historically plauable events, they shoudl all be seperatly activatable.

 

[ForzaA]

I'll readily admit that I'm not too much of AGCEEP player (a little too many events for my tastes at least at some times) and I don't visit here very often.
(so much for the disclaimer)

It seems that what (part of) the discussion is about is:
defining fantasy events. Ie. should an English victory in the HYW be treated the same as a resurgent Byzantine Empire, or a globe conquering Inca Empire.

I think that you should (try to) split it depending on what is "needed" to make the events happen, and when this is/was needed.

For example, the HYW was pretty much still open in 1419 (and, arguably, tilting towards an English victory with Henry V) whereas Byzantium had *in essence* lost against the Ottoman Empire, and lived only because the OE hadn't had the time.

The first was essentially decided IN the EU2 timeframe, the second, before the EU2 timeframe. I know a human player CAN win as Byzantium, and even the AI wins on occassion, and I know that AI England seldom wins the HYW, nevertheless, I think what I said is pretty much true.

That is a first criterion: when is the deviation needed? Before or during the EU2 timeframe?

Secondly: historical plausibility, a tough one, I agree, but certainly one that is needed. For example, the Lollard Heresy; the English kings cracked down on that, but it's not too much of a stretch to think that they would let them be, so long as they didn't become too noisy. (Far) less plausible would be an option like "Embrace the Lollard's teachings, and go on a crusade to spread the Word" - but certainly an option that COULD be worth to explore as a fantasy option. This also ties in with other historical events (for example: "embrace the Lollards" wouldn't fit well with a "take control of the church of England"-conversion to protestant, as you would essentially already have left the Cath. church)
Ofcourse, this will for a large part mean that only the "flavour" of a nation is changed, not the entire nation; instead of an "elite army" there's a "mass army" -- but in both cases there's an army to carry the country's flag.

That's a second criterion: How plausible is it, and how does it fit with other historical events.

A third criterion/consideration would be: how does the AI handle it; I know I (in vanilla) get occassionally quite frustrated, to the point of reloading the autosave, firing events from the console etc. when f.ex. Spain choses to marry a local talent, Spain diploannexes Aragon rather than waiting for the event. Bohemia picking the B choice meaning that Austria doesn't inherit.

Perhaps, rather than making it B (or C) choices in events, have separate events for the human player that give it a chance to "explore" an ahistorical route, rather than having the risk that the AI might stumble into an ahistorical path, without the AI being really suited for it.
Alternatively, you can have AI's in place that will be able to get along with the new situation.




I'm well aware that this is by no means a complete definition, and it's open to arguments/discussions/heated debates/flames.. Nevertheless, I think there's atleast some things that you might want to consider

 

[unmerged(17856)]

If those rules come to be, I support that most of the drastic alternate history stuff that is so controversial (Burgundy winning the HYW and surviving...

The 'BUR becomes FRA' path was criticized in the past, as was the current option to have Charles the Bold live longer. It was already agreed that this option should be axed, possibly in favour of a plausible ahistorical marriage between Charles and another candidate, for example. Ont he other hand, the former issue was not exactly an easy call. However, the majority view reached was 'might and circumstance over right' for Philip's ascension: essentially a matter of gameplay 'realism' meeting historical plausibility.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

As the HYW is already present, it is one of the few wars that can be modded at will. The downside is that some ahistoric options, however plausible, throw the European map through the window for the rest of the game. BUR is like BYZ a romantic country and the temptation to give her a chance is strong. I just defend that as in the case of BYZ, that chance should remain inside a fantasy folder.

A secondary effect of the 1.37 HYW setup is that BUR has become unusually unstable. Most of the times it either becomes the monster of the HRE or it gets chipped away to extinction before 1510. The exception is when it remains within reasonable size and gets properly inherited.

 

[Norrefeldt]

My personal stance regarding what's included in the Fantasy option so far have been that anything goes. I have been thinking of it as everyones playground, where people can do whatever they want, since there's no chance they break anything. Perhaps we should straighten it up, but since I don't care that much what is done, I don't care if it's straightened up or not. So go ahead!
I don't think it's a crucial or very much needed part of AGCEEP, and I spend almost no time on Fantasy suggestions or threads. But it is a very much played part of AGCEEP, and I think it would be a pity to lose those players just because we are trying to be orthodox. Judging from the numbers of posts on the subject the alternative BYZ route is one of the most played sequences.
I do think we should move more things into the Fantasy scenario though, like drastic alternate history in crucial events.

 

[crash63]

But it is a very much played part of AGCEEP, and I think it would be a pity to lose those players just because we are trying to be orthodox. Judging from the numbers of posts on the subject the alternative BYZ route is one of the most played sequences.
I do think we should move more things into the Fantasy scenario though, like drastic alternate history in crucial events.

I'm very very happy to read this.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

I agree with dharper's suggestions and Norrefeldt, to some extend, is right too.
Each country could have a fantasy path. Problem is Fantasy events can't adapt to each game. When I play a country, I could write some fantasy events to reflect political situation and current plausible choices. But in another game with the same country, these events could be non-sense because situation is completely different, even without human intervention...

That's why I only see fantasy events (and even some actions others than action_a for historic ones) as plausible limited missions or goals to achieve. That's the challenge and I understand why players, including me, like them. As a player, I only ask to have the choice to start (or not) such missions if goals are clearly explained before but I hate to be forced to follow a non desired fantasy path.
Better to have no events than disliked or "going to far" and even unrealistic fantasy ones. I used subjective expressions on purpose: to me, this situation is like a bad movie in which you can't modify what's happening... But your neighbour can really love this movie.
For example, when playing Order of St John, I liked the mission to conquer Outremer, but forming the Kingdom of Jerusalem was going to far for me and, hopefully, I had the choice to not form it. If I had no choice, I would have thrown my computer by the window...

IMO, we have to keep an eye on proposed fantasy events just to avoid such problems. As Garbon said, this is quality control. Since whe share common values, we can and must say what we consider to be a "bad movie" not to be "projected" in our "cinema".

 

[Truchses]

It might help to differenciate between 'Alternate History' and 'Fantasy'. You could call stuff, that is completely invented 'Fantasy'. Also an event chain has not to belong completely to one or the other.

Example Burgundy: It may be a historical choice at some point, even of Karl V, that Burgundy neither is attached to Spain nor to Austria and stays independent. As long as there are historical people that could act as monarchs of Burgundy, the event chain could be considered an alternation, especially if it developes into Holland during the reformation and moves the capital to Amsterdam. The integrity of the historical developement is even contained.

For some time in between the event where Burgundy leaves the historical path and where Burgundy rejoins it, some fantasy stuff might be necessary, especially if monarchs have to be invented. Or if at some point (which could be a historical date or historical circumstance) Austria could claim ownership. In combination with the Reformation and the TYW an event system (for this part fantasy) could cause Austria attaining ownership of the southern catholic provinces with Flandern, Luxemburg, Artois and Franche Comte, while the rest becomes independant, maybe at this point becoming Holland.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

As the HYW is already present, it is one of the few wars that can be modded at will. The downside is that some ahistoric options, however plausible, throw the European map through the window for the rest of the game. BUR is like BYZ a romantic country and the temptation to give her a chance is strong. I just defend that as in the case of BYZ, that chance should remain inside a fantasy folder.

Um, BUR was a helluvalot larger than Byzantium for the gameperiod here and lasted longer to boot. BUR's existence did not end with Charles's death, and it wasn't overun with foreign armies as Byzantium was. Claiming that BUR is like a romantic country en par with Byzantium fantasy type events is groundless.

A secondary effect of the 1.37 HYW setup is that BUR has become unusually unstable. Most of the times it either becomes the monster of the HRE or it gets chipped away to extinction before 1510. The exception is when it remains within reasonable size and gets properly inherited.

The inheritance is via events, which the HYW doesn't touch. Thus attributing inproper inheritance of BUR to the HYW setup is a non-issue. In my own games BUR has performed historically. I havn't seen complaints regarding BUR's development or end result.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

Example Burgundy: It may be a historical choice at some point... ...The integrity of the historical developement is even contained.

For some time in between the event where Burgundy leaves the historical path and where Burgundy rejoins it, some fantasy stuff might be necessary, especially if monarchs have to be invented...

Agreed. Historical plausibility requires historical justification. For example, what historical justification is there for extending the life of a monarch who died of natural cause? I'd also prefer for alternative historical paths to meet with historical paths at some point, the sooner the better.

 

[Garbon]

My want of some sort of order for the fantasy option is not purely a dogmatic concern. I don't understand why we should have a bunch of files in the mod that not only don't add to our purpose but potentially detract/distract (the proposed pagan byzantium seems very historically implausible to me).

In my mind, there is no need to officially support things that are counter to the aims of this mod. I don't buy the idea that things should stay as they are, as many of our users like the crazy fantasy bits...as if thats what draws them, then how do those people constitute our target audience of a historical mod?