Geopolitics - The Thing That I Love About This Game

[unmerged(200028)]

The thing that I love most about EU, (which is tough to say, honestly), is the geopolitical aspect, and its simplicity. Seeing where wars are likely to erupt, who is going to join both sides, who is likely to win, and especially the blobs that form wub, is very enjoyable to say the least. Also, I love how this game punishes brash and inopportune action, (unlike most strategy games that condone inconsequential, and poorly thought out wars). When I first started playing this game, I was disappointed when I would get dog-piled for a war of aggression over an adjacent OPM. Now, I see just how great this is - the web of diplomatic interrelation that one walks through in their conquest very often needs to be carefully thought out and planned around in almost every case (excluding the situation where you're absolutely unstoppable, which by then you've probably already 'won'). "One does not simply walk into a tight web of diplomatic interrelation" (I had to). Even a behemoth blob is subject to implosion or defeat if it is acted against prudently. These checks and balances make the game extremely exciting to me, and while it sometimes can be repetitious, (what game isn't?), it is very often immersive and quite fun.

The other thing that I highly enjoy about EU, (which is tied to the first), is its simplicity. While I certainly don't mind micromanagement or lots of detail, in the case of this game I am glad that it's exciting pace is not bogged down by this. In my opinion, it just doesn't fit the nature of the game. I would call this game a prime example of deep simplicity, (where Go might be the best example of all). What I mean by this in context is that the rules and factors that comprise an outcome in the game, (or the game itself), aren't necessarily complicated or hard to understand, but the situations that they form can be deep, sometimes very deep. Even while this game does have several factors and rules, most of them are under the hood and not something that player interacts with directly, he can still know how they contribute to the situation of the game, and use this knowledge as discernment in his action. This, I believe, is where the depth lies, in all of it's apparent simplicity.

I might have jumped around too much with my thoughts, and I apologize if this post wasn't clear. Now I know that this game is not perfect, and has its faults and failures just like anything else, and I didn't exactly express my thoughts as concisely as I would have wished, but this aspect of the game deserves praise IMO.

Does anyone else agree or disagree, or have general thoughts on the matter?

 

[Junuxx]

I like what you said about deep simplicity.

As an AI student, I often think about how a history unfolding in this game is mostly an emergent behavior, and how hard it is to design and control, from the point of view of the developer, the surface behavior through changes in the rules. I think fans often overlook or fail to understand this when they demand that, for example, Spain doesn't expand in North Africa as much.

 

[3Form]

I agree, I love having to have my thinking cap on, especially when planning wars. One always has to try and avoid overextending and it helps to plan beforehand.

I remember finding vanilla so complicated to start with, but now it feels like child's play compared to some of the mods. Which is the main thing I'm worried about EU4!

 

[smellymummy]

geopolitics, pretty much the only reason i get sucked into paradox games, always a fun thing

but i'm not sure if i follow you on simplicity. this game is immensely complex. stability, revolt risk, war weariness, tolerance, culture, religion, military upkeep, building and building upgrades, magistrate, decisions... and on it goes. all these things all tie in together to form a much bigger complex picture, which imo is another awesome aspect of this game (saying complex is better than simple)

 

[unmerged(200028)]

geopolitics, pretty much the only reason i get sucked into paradox games, always a fun thing

but i'm not sure if i follow you on simplicity. this game is immensely complex. stability, revolt risk, war weariness, tolerance, culture, religion, military upkeep, building and building upgrades, magistrate, decisions... and on it goes. all these things all tie in together to form a much bigger complex picture, which imo is another awesome aspect of this game (saying complex is better than simple)

Well, there are several factors that comprise the existing situation, (such as all the things that you listed and more), but what I mean by simple is that the player doesn't have as much control over these things, (with exception to some of them). Do you really do anything about the tax rate of a province? Not really, but it's there, and because it's there, and you control it, it contributes to your ability to project force on other nations, etc. The player makes few, important decisions based upon knowledge of the existing situation, rather than direct micromanagement, (such as that which we see in Civilization, or what have you).

Even still the mechanics are not so daunting that most people have trouble wrapping their heads around them. It's still a fairly simple game to understand, besides all of the above. That's all that I mean when I say that it is simple.

 

[Kurblius]

As I've said before, there are many times when I just stare at it on Pause for hours. It's always a thrill when I figure out all the interrelations and the best way forward becomes clear. It's like solving a puzzle involving gears and gadgets, many of which aren't within your direct control. A smart player will usually set a number of things in motion at once, and then exploit the opportunities that arise from them. Whereas a poor player will unwittingly create future obstacles to one's objective. Forced into a war by an ally against the Papal States while your sworn enemy Austria has three Cardinals? Oops, Austria get's a fourth, becomes Papal Controller, and you've now been Excommunicated!

 

[unmerged(487181)]

Maybe it's because of my extensive background playing Diplomacy against six other talented human beings, but I find the geopolitics of EU3 to be rather bland and boring, frankly. I bet if I played legitimate multiplayer it might be different, but the AI is really really dumb and predictable with its diplomacy. If it's not your ally, being crushed by someone else, or in a war with the target, it heeds all alliances. The only unpredictable thing is its targets for wars; they're unpredictable, but not in the sense of a master schemer striking at the opportune moment more than truly random DOWs that rarely make geostrategic sense. The AI tends to act like the Jackrabbit, a term from a Diplomacy article I once read - someone who jumps around, grabbing one province here and another there - and only gets away with it because everyone else is a Jackrabbit as well. Jackrabbits get crushed against even halfway competent Diplomacy players. Sorry, but bad players (the AI) getting away with bad play because hundreds of other players (the rest of the AI countries) also play bad is just not impressive to me.

 

[brifbates]

but i'm not sure if i follow you on simplicity. this game is immensely complex. stability, revolt risk, war weariness, tolerance, culture, religion, military upkeep, building and building upgrades, magistrate, decisions... and on it goes. all these things all tie in together to form a much bigger complex picture, which imo is another awesome aspect of this game (saying complex is better than simple)

While there are a lot of complexities in the model of "how the world works" the player really only has a relatively few things to deal with. 95%+ of the game is spent dealing with just the 11 budgetary sliders with varying effects, 6 agent types to decide jobs for, 3 advisor slots, 8 social sliders, and your military units/leaders. Not an overly large number of moving parts to deal with. Contrast that with Vicky where you probably have that many resource types to regularly determine buy/sell/stockpile levels for before getting into the sliders, etc.

 

[unmerged(200028)]

Maybe it's because of my extensive background playing Diplomacy against six other talented human beings, but I find the geopolitics of EU3 to be rather bland and boring, frankly. I bet if I played legitimate multiplayer it might be different, but the AI is really really dumb and predictable with its diplomacy. If it's not your ally, being crushed by someone else, or in a war with the target, it heeds all alliances. The only unpredictable thing is its targets for wars; they're unpredictable, but not in the sense of a master schemer striking at the opportune moment more than truly random DOWs that rarely make geostrategic sense. The AI tends to act like the Jackrabbit, a term from a Diplomacy article I once read - someone who jumps around, grabbing one province here and another there - and only gets away with it because everyone else is a Jackrabbit as well. Jackrabbits get crushed against even halfway competent Diplomacy players. Sorry, but bad players (the AI) getting away with bad play because hundreds of other players (the rest of the AI countries) also play bad is just not impressive to me.

Similarly to what Junuxx said, I don't believe players really comprehend how complex having an AI at all is. A computer program is never going to surpass the complexity of a human brain, even as it concerns playing a game like EU3, so don't be disappointed when you get the advantage of thinking and evaluating where the computer is merely running programs and reactions to certain triggered situations. I do agree that the AI tends to form runaway blobs that look horrible, and doesn't have much of a strategic objective in mind, (really how could it, without giving it one), but as it concerns the actual playing of the game it is more than competent. Believe me, I've seen far worse AI, and if you compared all popular PC strategy games, I would bet that EU3 would at least be at the top of the list.

 

[Grubnessul]

Maybe it's because of my extensive background playing Diplomacy against six other talented human beings, but I find the geopolitics of EU3 to be rather bland and boring, frankly. I bet if I played legitimate multiplayer it might be different, but the AI is really really dumb and predictable with its diplomacy. If it's not your ally, being crushed by someone else, or in a war with the target, it heeds all alliances. The only unpredictable thing is its targets for wars; they're unpredictable, but not in the sense of a master schemer striking at the opportune moment more than truly random DOWs that rarely make geostrategic sense. The AI tends to act like the Jackrabbit, a term from a Diplomacy article I once read - someone who jumps around, grabbing one province here and another there - and only gets away with it because everyone else is a Jackrabbit as well. Jackrabbits get crushed against even halfway competent Diplomacy players. Sorry, but bad players (the AI) getting away with bad play because hundreds of other players (the rest of the AI countries) also play bad is just not impressive to me.

A Paradox Diplomacy game would be interesting.

 

[unmerged(487181)]

Similarly to what Junuxx said, I don't believe players really comprehend how complex having an AI at all is. A computer program is never going to surpass the complexity of a human brain, even as it concerns playing a game like EU3, so don't be disappointed when you get the advantage of thinking and evaluating where the computer is merely running programs and reactions to certain triggered situations. I do agree that the AI tends to form runaway blobs that look horrible, and doesn't have much of a strategic objective in mind, (really how could it, without giving it one), but as it concerns the actual playing of the game it is more than competent. Believe me, I've seen far worse AI, and if you compared all popular PC strategy games, I would bet that EU3 would at least be at the top of the list.

"It's better than even worse players" =/= "It's good" though. I will happily give Paradox tons of praise for creating a game as deep and complex as this one is, but I really don't think it's the geopolitics that makes it so.

A Paradox Diplomacy game would be interesting.

It would. I don't think it would be their style (if EU3 is deep simplicity, Diplomacy wrote the book on it), but that in and of itself makes the mere concept fascinating.

 

[Grubnessul]

It would. I don't think it would be their style (if EU3 is deep simplicity, Diplomacy wrote the book on it), but that in and of itself makes the mere concept fascinating.

There might be enough people here interested to get a game going.

 

[unmerged(200028)]

"It's better than even worse players" =/= "It's good" though. I will happily give Paradox tons of praise for creating a game as deep and complex as this one is, but I really don't think it's the geopolitics that makes it so.


It would. I don't think it would be their style (if EU3 is deep simplicity, Diplomacy wrote the book on it), but that in and of itself makes the mere concept fascinating.

http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/diplomacy

I believe that it already exists.

 

[unmerged(487181)]

But I retired from... ah, screw it. brb going to OT forum and getting one organized

 

[Sandmann]

As I've said before, there are many times when I just stare at it on Pause for hours. It's always a thrill when I figure out all the interrelations and the best way forward becomes clear. It's like solving a puzzle involving gears and gadgets, many of which aren't within your direct control. A smart player will usually set a number of things in motion at once, and then exploit the opportunities that arise from them. Whereas a poor player will unwittingly create future obstacles to one's objective. Forced into a war by an ally against the Papal States while your sworn enemy Austria has three Cardinals? Oops, Austria get's a fourth, becomes Papal Controller, and you've now been Excommunicated!

Speaking of pausing, I've noticed that when I sometimes think about a game after a session I get many ideas how to continue my game which I wouldn't had when the game is rolling. It's like small 'eureka' moments.

 

[Kurblius]

Speaking of pausing, I've noticed that when I sometimes think about a game after a session I get many ideas how to continue my game which I wouldn't had when the game is rolling. It's like small 'eureka' moments.

Exactly!