Giuseppe Garibaldi in Vicky 2

[King]

Depends on your definition of arbitrariness, I would say... I'm just saying, *IF* you run Sicily badly, *THEN* you should see Garibaldi starting to raise hell.

Actually my definition of arbitrariness is the only one that counts because I am the Game Designer for Victoria 2.

 

[Andrelvis]

Well in VIP for VR we are already moving towards at least having options for players to take in the events, and events which did not have options were being reworked to provide options, and going through the major events to get the triggers to be much more context sensitive than they were in earlier renditions Given another year or two, that process will be much further along, and more alternative lines of development will be possible. But it all takes time, lots of time, to do. And the V1 event system retains a lot of rigidity that makes it very difficult to fit the situation on the ground during gameplay with the intent of the events being scripted, meaning very cumbersome triggers and extensive event chains with more flags than in front of the UN General headquarters needed to keep things organized.

For V2, VIP will most likely have to reapproach its event system it has to make it do what posters like Orinsul say but also clearly keeping an eye on the gameplay environment that V2 creates, both for the human player and for AI nations. I believe can be done, BUT wil require a good amount of rethink as to how to frame the triggers so that the context in which the events fire make sense and the impact of the events are not so draconian as to overly constrain future player action down one specific path (or at least ensure an "out" option) or spring upon the player something game-ruining just because it happened in history even if you are playing your nation in a different way (would Garibaldi's Red Shirts have landed in Sicily if the Bourbon regime was a progressive con-mon with a strong industrial base, and more importantly, would the island of Sicily have risen in support of Garibaldi in that situation, or was Garibaldi's success due to the nature of the Bourbon regime and economic conditions of 1850s Sicily. Should Sardinia get a Garibaldi & Redshirts event if 2S is not in the condition it was historically, especially if either 2S or Sardinia is being played by the human in this situation?).

Basically it means that event writers will have to think more openly, they can not simply construct the event based on the historical events that did happen, but also really must consider contexts in which the historical event would not make sense at all and the ahistorical routes that could have evolved had the historical action in response to the situation not been taken.

That said, the event system in EU3-HoI3 based games is MUCH more flexible in terms of crafting events and event triggers, once you understand the system and where it differs from the old. For example, it does alllow much more precise trigger writing and targeted effects so that context makes better sense for an event to fire and the impact can be better targeted to fit the situation in game, rather than the all-or-nothing approach to events that the old game engine was based on.

Part of the problem here I think is that players are only thinking in terms of what the EU3 toolkit has available for modders, which is no longer the whole story in terms of modding in Paradox games. In addition to the major steps forward made by Paradox in the various EU3 expansions, which means modding in Heir to the Throne is much more developed than in base EU3 1.0, alos don't forget that in the interim Paradox has also made HoI3, and anyone who has done some investigation into the decision and event system for that game should know that the nature of event writing in the current generation games took a giant leap forward with the HoI3 toolkit. See the decision and event system used in HoI3 for better explanation here of what I mean, but HoI3 adds a hell of alot more tools for modders, tools which I would expect will be abailable in large part for V2.

As I've said previously, probably the vast majority of VIP events can be translated over in my opinion. Will take some time, and some tweaking for balance to fit the new game environment, but I'd definitely say it can be done, but with the understanding that the triggers and effects need to clearly fire in the right context - geopolitical, internal political and socioeconomic.

This is great to hear!

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Actually my definition of arbitrariness is the only one that counts because I am the Game Designer for Victoria 2.

Thank you for stating the obvious!

Look I'm just a fan stating my opinion and some arguments why I think it makes sense. Not the developer with the vision for the game, that's you. I'm sure your vision of the game is really good, and Vic2 will be a lot of fun to play, but I'm also sure there are details about that game vision where many players will wish the game was a little less sandboxy-abstract-impersonal. Like having some historical leaders -who are not just flavor, but make a real difference- pop up in the right circumstances.

That's why I am writing this here, instead of going to home to catch some sleep. Just making sure my opinion is heard, even if it's not implemented.

 

[unmerged(103845)]

Wouldn´t a good way to solve it be to have major events saying e.g:

My Lord/King/President etc. We suffer from a pan-nationalist uprising... blah blah blah. And after the event text something like a historical briefing: This happened e.g. in Italy where Garibaldi... blah blah blah.

The people who wants a bit more history gets it, but it´s not effecting the gameplay what so ever.

Although that's a pretty cool idea (especially if you had the option to hide the "historical precedent" if you didn't want to see it), I suspect it would actually only enrage both sides. The people who want Garibaldi to lead the in-game revolution in Italy wouldn't be satisfied by a blurb telling them that random revolutionary leader X is based on Garibaldi. And the people who want a sandbox game will find it distracting to hear about how Garibaldi helped over-throw the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and united Italy, when in their game Italy there is no Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and Italy is divided up between Spain and France.

I doubt there is any compromise that will please both side. Personally, I would find it annoying and less historically plausible to always have a "Giuseppe Garibaldi" leading the Italy revolutionaries (I mean, what were the chances of his surviving his Brazilian expedition and being able to persuade enough of his legionaries to follow him back to Italy for him to be a major figure). But others no doubt disagree.

Fortunately, this is something that would be very easy to mod, and since it seems like there are enough of you who want Garibaldi in the game, I'm sure you can come up with a Garibaldi event chain that actually has good triggers so it doesn't lead to arbitrary results like Garibaldi simultaneously showing up in five different places in Italy despite the population having extremely low militancy and his also being the ruler of the Piratini Republic.

 

[Ex Mudder]

Age of famous 19th century people on 1/1/1836:
Guiseppe Garibaldi - 28 years (already a seasoned veteran of the liberal rebellions at that point)
Otto von Bismarck - 20 years (already finished law studies, already strongly conservative, already in the Prussian civil service)
Abraham Lincoln - 25 years (already a member of the Illinois House of Representatives, and about to hold his first anti-slavery speech)
Isambard Kingdom Brunel - 29 years (working as chief engineer of the Thames tunnel in London)

Don't cull them all! The game would be so bland without them.

But what would they do in the game? Vicky isn't really set up to handle CK or EU (or even Rome) style kings and revolutionaries and great men of the court.

Even Victoria herself isn't represented in game, other than in your ability to appoint the ruling party in the UK, so Lincoln and Bismark won't have jobs either, they way they do in HOI.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Lordy lord, hard coded historical events required to drive the game, instead of being for flavour purposes to make your country come alive, are a sign that your game design has failed.

By that logic Victoria and Hearts of Iron II were failures...

I completely understand the desire to make the game as free as possible to avoid artificially limiting players, but I don't think any game engine can model the complexities of the Victorian era without some events to keep things on a historical path.

It's fun to take control of a nation in Victoria/Hearts of Iron and try new things, fight against the historical trends, and craft your own nation/history. That sort of fun experience disappears when every country in the game is doing ahistorical things. It goes from being a historical grand strategy game to something akin to Age of Empires or Civilization.

I hope Vicky 2 proves me wrong, but I can't say the other Clausewitz engine games have made me very hopeful.

 

[Garak]

Depends on your definition of arbitrariness, I would say... I'm just saying, *IF* you run Sicily badly, *THEN* you should see Garibaldi starting to raise hell.

Given that most of the time Sicily will be AI, and probably badly run, we should see Garibaldi most of the time. Otherwise we will see revolts in Sicily all the time, and ask ourselves, where is Garibaldi?

The possibility to see historical figures make an impact is IMHO what sets Victoria apart from a long-term sandbox game like Crusader Kings or EU3 where it would of course be silly to see Michelangelo or Gustav Adolf to pop up 100 or 250 years after the game was started. But a game which starts at a point where most of the historical people are already around should have those people.

Age of famous 19th century people on 1/1/1836:
Guiseppe Garibaldi - 28 years (already a seasoned veteran of the liberal rebellions at that point)
Otto von Bismarck - 20 years (already finished law studies, already strongly conservative, already in the Prussian civil service)
Abraham Lincoln - 25 years (already a member of the Illinois House of Representatives, and about to hold his first anti-slavery speech)
Isambard Kingdom Brunel - 29 years (working as chief engineer of the Thames tunnel in London)

Don't cull them all! The game would be so bland without them.

Doubtfull. Every single game of Victoria I played ended with Two Sicilies either forming Italy, or at least beating the other Italian states to a pulp and coming close to doing so. The AI was certainly capable of running the country well in the first game. As for the people, most of them only get brief mentions in Vicky as is. Not sure what else you're expecting to see of them in Victoria 2.

By that logic Victoria and Hearts of Iron II were failures...

I completely understand the desire to make the game as free as possible to avoid artificially limiting players, but I don't think any game engine can model the complexities of the Victorian era without some events to keep things on a historical path.

It's fun to take control of a nation in Victoria/Hearts of Iron and try new things, fight against the historical trends, and craft your own nation/history. That sort of fun experience disappears when every country in the game is doing ahistorical things. It goes from being a historical grand strategy game to something akin to Age of Empires or Civilization.

I hope Vicky 2 proves me wrong, but I can't say the other Clausewitz engine games have made me very hopeful.

Well, Johan has said on the forums he considers EU2 to be basically a failure for exactly those reasons. Don't remember if he used that word, but it was something like that. And the original Victoria was not exactly a commercial success, by all accounts. Also, I'd like to point out that one of the most sandboxy games Paradox has put out was Crusader Kings, which was before the Clausewitz engine. Arguably, Vicky was sandbox, too, with events thrown in to kick the game back on a historical track from time to time. You could easily see stuff like Mexico owning California into the 1870s or Russia never selling Alaska, Italy either never forming or always being formed by the wrong country, WWI never happening at all, the Ottomans never declining, etc. Unfortunately, the historical events would sometimes make things worse, not better. In my last game, I saw the CSA form with no ACW (US chose the peaceful option). Weirdly, though, a decade later, the CSA suddenly "surrenders" and is absorbed back into the Union, with no war. The Franco-Prussian War is only slightly less non-sensical as it is. My point is, sandbox stuff isn't new in Paradox games, and trying to correct it via events is only marginally effective anyway.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Doubtfull. Every single game of Victoria I played ended with Two Sicilies either forming Italy, or at least beating the other Italian states to a pulp and coming close to doing so. The AI was certainly capable of running the country well in the first game. As for the people, most of them only get brief mentions in Vicky as is. Not sure what else you're expecting to see of them in Victoria 2.

Well Vic1 had all the generals in the leader file, for one thing. I actually liked that. Russia got a load of crappy generals throughout the game and also some brilliant ones. Prussia got a lot of really good generals (if they invested leadership).

In the VIP mods the historical people were certainly mentioned...

 

[OHgamer]

Well Vic1 had all the generals in the leader file, for one thing. I actually liked that. Russia got a load of crappy generals throughout the game and also some brilliant ones. Prussia got a lot of really good generals (if they invested leadership).

In the VIP mods the historical people were certainly mentioned...

Which of course was a nice crutch for the human player....as has been said about pre-set historical generals all along. Just wait til the right general/admiral becomes available and use that to your advantage while the AI always retains whoever they get via luck of the draw (and in reality, qualities that were not known to the historical leadership until after the generals/admirals performed in battle. In early 1861 no one could have predicted the brilliance of General Lee, even among the political leadership of the emerging CSA. Seems silly to give the player a golden boy Lee every single game, when it could have happened that Lee was a poor leader who ended up being replaced within a year of his appointment).

With EU3 at least there is a more level playing field in that regard, you might get good generals, you might get bad generals, just like the AI, and nothing is predetermined and its up to the player to make the most with what fate deals him, good or bad. It also means there is a greater chance for game variability when playing the same nation. One game you might indeed get a set of great leaders and turn Bavaria in Germany, dominator of Mitteleuropa. The very next game, you get a bunch of idiots and morons as your leaders, and it's all you can do to preserve your independence against Austria or Prussia.

Of course events often were used exactly the same way by players - just wait til the right set of events come along and then it becomes much easier to achieve X because that is the way history worked. Again, major advantage to the human player against an AI who has no ability to "remember" history to know when to optimize its behavior for the greatest reward.

Which in the end is why I think the EU3 direction is better for the gaming experience overall, the less that is predetermined to happen, the greater the potential replay value even with the same country over and over again. Rather than fetishize the individual historical actor or action, as was so often the case in old EU2-engine based games, better to have a game that focuses on broader historical processes and allows the player to participate in those processes.

 

[Garak]

Well Vic1 had all the generals in the leader file, for one thing. I actually liked that. Russia got a load of crappy generals throughout the game and also some brilliant ones. Prussia got a lot of really good generals (if they invested leadership).

In the VIP mods the historical people were certainly mentioned...

Other than Garibaldi, the people he mentioned were not generals, so this wouldn't even pertain to them. That's what I was talking about. Also, we're talking about the vanilla version of Victoria 2. Comparing that to historical events in VIP doesn't make sense.

 

[BonSequitur]

The Revolution event chain in EU3 has two versions: A general one, and one for France. The latter exists exclusively for flavour and to set up 'revolutionary France' as a country.

A similar solution could be used to give the Italian, German, and other major unifications some flavour, without making them static or different from other unification decisions gameplay-wise.

 

[wilcoxchar]

The Revolution event chain in EU3 has two versions: A general one, and one for France. The latter exists exclusively for flavour and to set up 'revolutionary France' as a country.

A similar solution could be used to give the Italian, German, and other major unifications some flavour, without making them static or different from other unification decisions gameplay-wise.

No, the reason that a special system for a revolution in France exists is because there is a separate tag for a Napoleonic France.

 

[BonSequitur]

And that separate tag only exists for flavour. Majorly, it means that if you get a French revolution, you're very likely to get Napoleon as a leader.

 

[Orinsul]

County-specifics alongside the Generics is a good position. earlier in the devolopment of this game i was roused to fury by the statement that rather than the Meiji Restoration japan might get a generic fits any country event, the Meiji is something unique to Japan, Have a decision and event chain for ALL nations which is generic and allows them to force modernisation, but for Japan have the option of going either with the generic but thave their own specific event chain for the Historic Meiji Restoration which has conditions and effects unique to that nation and that historical situation. Mad and abstracted simplifications and gentrifications given historic names do not historic events make.
The Thousands of Historic Events and Decisions were promised in the inital statement, but if their not Historic but merely convient then the promise that was made is broken. It doesnt have to be all one way or the other, History is at the heart of Victoria and if you tear the heart out of something it dies horribly