I used to play EU2 vanilla and having discovered AGCEEP not long ago, I decided to try it out based on its premise of being a more "historically accurate" mod. But the more I play it the more I realize that while AGCEEP is far more "historically precise", the question of whether it is more "historically accurate" is harder to say. In some cases yes but in some cases no.
Now I should define these terms. By "historical precision", I mean the "exactness" of the historic setup, details and events. In this regard, AGCEEP is more "historically precise" than vanilla. A great example of course is the entire HYW setup which was fairly well done.
But what I mean by "historical accuracy" is not the exactness or correctness of details but the "overall" historical "truthfulness" of the historical results in a "big picture" kind of way. In other words, how the game's results resemble real life historical outcomes overall (not necessarily every detail but the general basic outcome).
One thing I have noticed is that it SEEMS to me that in some cases, AGCEEP decided to trade-off "historical accuracy" for "historical precision". The way the game is setup in AGCEEP, I have noticed many regular historical outcomes that are not "accurate" and in some cases less accurate than in vanilla!
The problem, as we all know, is that the basic game engine and design of EU2 is too "primitive" to make it a true historical simulator which is what makes the game interesting after all. I mean, that is why we almost never play "Fantasia" which is just a gloried RISK game. The problem is that the game engine treats the game as RISK that is why you see "random" wars and alliances and weird provinces being conquered and such. So no matter how "historically precise" you make it, without "guidance" the game will just degenerate into nonsense and a glorified version of RISK, in effect.
Take a look at the HYW setup of France. Now it is very "historically precise". But I noticed that there is a lot of "guidance" (in the form of lots of determistic events that favor French victory in HYW) to make it also "historically accurate". But if this "guidance" wasn't there, meaning you just let all the nations determine the outcome thru the normal game mechanics, obviously 9/10 times the historical flow will degenerate into nonsense.
I guess what I am trying to say is that increasing "historical precision" may not make the game more "historically accurate". In some cases it may even make it LESS accurate because the AI and the EU2 game engine simply cannot cope with that level of precision and because greater precision also gives the AIs more opportunities and degrees of freedom to deviate historically into nonsense (if no "guidance" is involved). And if precision leads to less accuracy and more "nonsense" then it seems all that hard work is for naught. As someone new to AGCEEP, this is how I see it IMHO.
Now I should define these terms. By "historical precision", I mean the "exactness" of the historic setup, details and events. In this regard, AGCEEP is more "historically precise" than vanilla. A great example of course is the entire HYW setup which was fairly well done.
But what I mean by "historical accuracy" is not the exactness or correctness of details but the "overall" historical "truthfulness" of the historical results in a "big picture" kind of way. In other words, how the game's results resemble real life historical outcomes overall (not necessarily every detail but the general basic outcome).
One thing I have noticed is that it SEEMS to me that in some cases, AGCEEP decided to trade-off "historical accuracy" for "historical precision". The way the game is setup in AGCEEP, I have noticed many regular historical outcomes that are not "accurate" and in some cases less accurate than in vanilla!
The problem, as we all know, is that the basic game engine and design of EU2 is too "primitive" to make it a true historical simulator which is what makes the game interesting after all. I mean, that is why we almost never play "Fantasia" which is just a gloried RISK game. The problem is that the game engine treats the game as RISK that is why you see "random" wars and alliances and weird provinces being conquered and such. So no matter how "historically precise" you make it, without "guidance" the game will just degenerate into nonsense and a glorified version of RISK, in effect.
Take a look at the HYW setup of France. Now it is very "historically precise". But I noticed that there is a lot of "guidance" (in the form of lots of determistic events that favor French victory in HYW) to make it also "historically accurate". But if this "guidance" wasn't there, meaning you just let all the nations determine the outcome thru the normal game mechanics, obviously 9/10 times the historical flow will degenerate into nonsense.
I guess what I am trying to say is that increasing "historical precision" may not make the game more "historically accurate". In some cases it may even make it LESS accurate because the AI and the EU2 game engine simply cannot cope with that level of precision and because greater precision also gives the AIs more opportunities and degrees of freedom to deviate historically into nonsense (if no "guidance" is involved). And if precision leads to less accuracy and more "nonsense" then it seems all that hard work is for naught. As someone new to AGCEEP, this is how I see it IMHO.