Historical Coalitions v EU IV coalitions

[gaius valerius]

No it is not, at least not in the sense of total war implying total conquest as is the case with Total War games, since there is no real alternative for conquest (since vassals and client states in Creative Assembly games mean nothing). EU IV offers a viable alternative for military conquest. Yes there will always be war, but conquest of your foes is not necessary. Partial gains yes, but there is no need to blob. You can expand within your own defined framework.

Say I'm France I can opt to push my boundaries to the Rhine, go for Italy or the North Sea Coast or both in the long run. I can combine it with a colonisation effort in Canada and set of for the Caribbean or India, set my flag in the Spice Islands. I can subjugate a country here or there to serve as a launching point for future conflicts. I can allow each larger neighbour to persist (apart from Burgundy lol): Castile, Aragon, Spain if it was to be formed, England or Great Britain, Austria, etc. I can opt to keep them manageable. I don't need to conquer Iberia but I can be content with kicking their butts whenever they challenge me, while making gains across the globe at their expense. I can opt to construct a large fleet for the mere sake of challenging Great Britain on the seas cause it feels good doing so. I can cover my flank with German or Italian vassals and never annex them cause the map simply looks awesome that way. I can garner wealth from trade in the Indies to fuel a European war machine bend at establishing my own personal hegemony in Europe, without conquest, but by the sake of being the strongest military power, alone or in an alliance. I can work towards preserving a balance of power through war but without conquest. And yes, you can try do something totally opposite because 'you can', why not make a 16th century replica of Charlemagne's great empire?

The idea that 'it isn't a total war game' implies 'it's not about waging wars' is simply a fallacious statement that only takes the words at face value. The aforementioned expansion can be very fun and doesn't result into your typical Total War game, where the only solution to any - ANY - situation is to shove your armed fist up your opponent and annex annex annex annex. EU IV offers a perfectly viable alternative to this.

 

[unmerged(815621)]

The idea that 'it isn't a total war game' implies 'it's not about waging wars' is simply a fallacious statement that only takes the words at face value. The aforementioned expansion can be very fun and doesn't result into your typical Total War game, where the only solution to any - ANY - situation is to shove your armed fist up your opponent and annex annex annex annex. EU IV offers a perfectly viable alternative to this.

I did not say that what you are implying. I am saying that "it's only about waging war" not that "it's about waging war" (as one implies total war and the other implies that their is something viable to do during peacetime that does not ultimately lead to war). Sure you can do some round about things such as colonization. But the end result of colonization is more money. Money which you essentially spend on your war machine. Colonization results in more wars as other countries want your colonies. The viable alternative to war annexing is diplo-annexing, also resulting in more wars. Either that or you can sit in a mountain province and just peace out for money of breaking alliances, which just results in wars that go nowhere.

This game is centered around waring better and more, through side mechanics such as colonization, religion, and trade. Peacetime mechanics do not exist anywhere near the extent of wartime mechanics. This is because its easier to make war, the reward for war is more instant (and likewise so is the punishment). There are also really not any peacetime mechanics that decrease the chance for war (unless you count owning everyone around you as peaceful) The two really differences between Total War are scale and tactics. The end result is the same: take as much land as you can. During this time, any additional land is often seen as aggressive expansion, even if no one else was on the land. Throw in the war mechanics of carpet sieging being the viable war strategy, and I fail to see how you get something other than a total war game.

This is not a bad thing, but saying the goal of EU is fundamentally different from the goal of TW is just wrong. The difference is the mechanics and the depth. Total war does not imply WC, it just implies all the mechanics are there to promote and enhance war and that peace is not a real viable alternative as there is not much to do and what you can do more or less leads to more war.

 

[Anthropoid]

Disagree this game is about conquest. Its about history.

 

[gaius valerius]

Disagree this game is about conquest. Its about history.

I to consider this to be about conquest and history. Our views on that seem to differ however. I'll agree to disagree haha (cause we could do this all night and neither of us would really concede methinks)

 

[unmerged(815621)]

Disagree this game is about conquest. Its about history.

I to consider this to be about conquest and history. Our views on that seem to differ however. I'll agree to disagree haha (cause we could do this all night and neither of us would really concede methinks)

Its amusing the fan base is split into varying degrees of how historical they think the game is, how historical they expect the game to be, and where historical fidelity should be most preserved. This has all sorts of implications on what they think the goal of the game is and/or should be.

I think, ideally, the game should not be a total war game. However, I think that in its current state and its foreseeable future, that it is a total war game. Irrespective of this fact, it is a fun game, which is why I have put hundreds of hours into it.

 

[Noctus]

- Coalitions should be region locked or, at the very least, continent locked. I had a game as England -> GB on which I was the target of a coalition of Ming, Aztec and Mali. Nuff said.

/signed.

The current world-wide coalition way its just mind-numbingly unhistorical, annoying and feels like an extremely gamey way to slow down expansion.

 

[gaius valerius]

Its amusing the fan base is split into varying degrees of how historical they think the game is, how historical they expect the game to be, and where historical fidelity should be most preserved. This has all sorts of implications on what they think the goal of the game is and/or should be.

I think, ideally, the game should not be a total war game. However, I think that in its current state and its foreseeable future, that it is a total war game. Irrespective of this fact, it is a fun game, which is why I have put hundreds of hours into it.

Fun game indeed Hours... so many hours... !!! I see history in the light of the tradition set out by the Annales, by Bloch, Febvre and Braudel. As such this offers a pretty sound interpretation (compared to its antagonist, Ranke-anism) of history and in my opinion offers a good window for how a game should/could work. History wasn't written in stone before it happened, yes, but several determining factors have always been there. Factors that humans can alter little about, the ebb and flow of life itself was way beyond the power of individual dynasts. Most of this can not - not - be made into a game cause it would make EU IV more complex than (Masters of Orion)². It's hard to pour into a mechanic the century long obsession of England to keep the Low Countries out of the hands of its great rivals such as France, and in turn, the French attempts to ever push their boundary northward along this line. Similarly the Italian mirage that gripped neigbhouring sovereigns in a tight grip is also hard to simulate in in-game mechanics. How to make an AI that can fathom the greater depths of the 1756 Renversement des Alliances and the French loss of trust in their former Prussian allies in the span of mere years? How to implement a system that can simulate a balance between the immovable reality of geography, the secular conjunctural trend and the whisical intricacies of dynastic history?

Not easy that.

 

[Eyestabber]

The problem, I think, is that people want to avoid a historical abomination (World Conquest) through completely anti-historical means. In their minds, it's OK to have a brick wall preventing WC, because you shouldn't be trying it anyway! What they fail to realize is that the reasons why nobody ever conquered the world are 100% impossible to simulate on a computer game. It would take a conscious effort of several generations of warmongering people standing perfectly united, but that's just impossible.

Even if your kingdom has "King Conquest McMurder" as king, and his son is "King Conquest McMurder II", there is absolutely no guarantee that his great grandson won't end up being "King Live and let Live I". People are different, and not all of them share dreams of World Domination and even if they did, look what happened to the "Great Mongol Empire". Only way this would be possible to simulate was if you were only allowed to play ONE King. After that, some guy taps you in the shoulder and says "My turn, buddy". There is also internal power struggle, betrayal, cultural shifts and so forth. All of these can never be totally simulated. Only warfare can.

So when you remove these very human factors that make WC impossible, whats your result? A single guy, with the same ideas being the "soul" of several Kings. A person who is NOT sending fellow countryman to die on foreign soil, but rather is just making sure he has enough "Manpower" to wage his next war. Remember that stack of Nationalist rebels you crushed? CONGRATULATIONS, you just killed Ghandi. It's impossible for a computer game to simulate ANY of that. The conclusion is inevitable: World Conquest IN A GAME end up being possible UNLESS you add broken mechanics and artificial limits to the gains of warfare in order to somehow make up for the fact that every single player is NOT leading real people.

 

[gaius valerius]

The problem, I think, is that people want to avoid a historical abomination (World Conquest) through completely anti-historical means. In their minds, it's OK to have a brick wall preventing WC, because you shouldn't be trying it anyway! What they fail to realize is that the reasons why nobody ever conquered the world are 100% impossible to simulate on a computer game. It would take a conscious effort of several generations of warmongering people standing perfectly united, but that's just impossible.

Even if your kingdom has "King Conquest McMurder" as king, and his son is "King Conquest McMurder II", there is absolutely no guarantee that his great grandson won't end up being "King Live and let Live I". People are different, and not all of them share dreams of World Domination and even if they did, look what happened to the "Great Mongol Empire". Only way this would be possible to simulate was if you were only allowed to play ONE King. After that, some guy taps you in the shoulder and says "My turn, buddy". There is also internal power struggle, betrayal, cultural shifts and so forth. All of these can never be totally simulated. Only warfare can.

So when you remove these very human factors that make WC impossible, whats your result? A single guy, with the same ideas being the "soul" of several Kings. A person who is NOT sending fellow countryman to die on foreign soil, but rather is just making sure he has enough "Manpower" to wage his next war. Remember that stack of Nationalist rebels you crushed? CONGRATULATIONS, you just killed Ghandi. It's impossible for a computer game to simulate ANY of that. The conclusion is inevitable: World Conquest IN A GAME end up being possible UNLESS you add broken mechanics and artificial limits to the gains of warfare in order to somehow make up for the fact that every single player is NOT leading real people.

This post is a trick question isn't it? It's crystal clear to me that you are making veiled allusions to The Emperor Of Mankind, our divine Anathema XD

 

[mcmanusaur]

What they fail to realize is that the reasons why nobody ever conquered the world are 100% impossible to simulate on a computer game. It would take a conscious effort of several generations of warmongering people standing perfectly united, but that's just impossible.

Alright, so why is that 100% impossible to simulate in a game? Certainly Paradox hasn't succeeded in doing so (and have instead opted for hard limits and walls in certain places), but I believe it can be done.

Even if your kingdom has "King Conquest McMurder" as king, and his son is "King Conquest McMurder II", there is absolutely no guarantee that his great grandson won't end up being "King Live and let Live I". People are different, and not all of them share dreams of World Domination and even if they did, look what happened to the "Great Mongol Empire". Only way this would be possible to simulate was if you were only allowed to play ONE King. After that, some guy taps you in the shoulder and says "My turn, buddy". There is also internal power struggle, betrayal, cultural shifts and so forth. All of these can never be totally simulated. Only warfare can.

What makes warfare special? Just because the strategy game genre owes a lot to wargames doesn't mean we have to elevate warfare to this status of the one thing worth trying to simulate. And for that matter the same thing goes for combat in RPGs. I'm so tired of games that should by all means be offering a somewhat holistic experience focusing almost exclusively on war or combat because they're too unimaginative to try to simulate anything else. Other things can be simulated; sometimes it's slightly more difficult, and sometimes all it requires is a different frame of mind.

It's impossible for a computer game to simulate ANY of that. The conclusion is inevitable: World Conquest IN A GAME end up being possible UNLESS you add broken mechanics and artificial limits to the gains of warfare in order to somehow make up for the fact that every single player is NOT leading real people.

It's impossible only if you lack the imagination and ingenuity of figuring out how it could be implemented. Many people would have said pretty much the same thing about a game like Minecraft being impossible, but with an implementation that admittedly makes a couple of compromises in a few regards (i.e. graphics), Notch proved it could be done. Paradox attempts to patch up the shortcomings of their simulation with randomness (and also a bit of determinism in certain regards), and- while the game is (mostly) playable and runs on decent hardware- personally I don't feel that's a compelling solution from a few angles.

It's not even particularly difficult to conceive of abstracted mechanics that scale to create an equilibrium for territorial area and thus render WC unlikely without hard limits, but I'd hardly call it a simulation. I personally wouldn't really be bothered by a system in which beyond a particular equilibrium the difficulty increased exponentially to the point of making WC virtually impossible; after all, this was arguably the true historical situation. World conquest is always physically possible, but the amount of circumstances that have to be just right is impossibly high, and a game can handle things the same way by forcing increasingly optimal play for progress to occur.

 

[Anthropoid]

I to consider this to be about conquest and history. Our views on that seem to differ however. I'll agree to disagree haha (cause we could do this all night and neither of us would really concede methinks)

History is a more inclusive topic. History includes conquest. Conquest is one element of history.

Another way to put it: conquest is probably a necessary part of any game whose spirit is to render an interactive history experience. However, conquest is not by itself sufficient to fully represent a game intended to render history.

 

[gaius valerius]

History is a more inclusive topic. History includes conquest. Conquest is one element of history.

Another way to put it: conquest is probably a necessary part of any game whose spirit is to render an interactive history experience. However, conquest is not by itself sufficient to fully represent a game intended to render history.

True that. I think we'll still have to wait some time for a game which might include the finer fabrics - ever in a toned down, manageable gaming form - of an actual immersive experience. An experience where-in I clearly know that noble x revolted because I as sovereign slighted him (like Charles de Bourbon and François I). Or a game that can handle 180° diplomatic turns like those of Andrea Doria and Genoa, or Kaunitz and the Franco-Austrian alliance. Or that can simulate internal powerstruggles in a coalition between members who each strive towards their own outcome (like the Anglo-Batavian condominium vs Austria) or even more deeper, an internal dissidence between factions (like the Whigs and Tories, or earlier Roundheads and Cavaliers or in France between the Royalists and the Frondée). Such a game is still far off.

 

[Anthropoid]

True that. I think we'll still have to wait some time for a game which might include the finer fabrics - ever in a toned down, manageable gaming form - of an actual immersive experience. An experience where-in I clearly know that noble x revolted because I as sovereign slighted him (like Charles de Bourbon and François I). Or a game that can handle 180° diplomatic turns like those of Andrea Doria and Genoa, or Kaunitz and the Franco-Austrian alliance. Or that can simulate internal powerstruggles in a coalition between members who each strive towards their own outcome (like the Anglo-Batavian condominium vs Austria) or even more deeper, an internal dissidence between factions (like the Whigs and Tories, or earlier Roundheads and Cavaliers or in France between the Royalists and the Frondée). Such a game is still far off.

IMO, the key is to model human psychology more. That is what I intend to do if I ever stop procrastinating and start making 'my game' LOL

 

[mcmanusaur]

True that. I think we'll still have to wait some time for a game which might include the finer fabrics - ever in a toned down, manageable gaming form - of an actual immersive experience. An experience where-in I clearly know that noble x revolted because I as sovereign slighted him (like Charles de Bourbon and François I). Or a game that can handle 180° diplomatic turns like those of Andrea Doria and Genoa, or Kaunitz and the Franco-Austrian alliance. Or that can simulate internal powerstruggles in a coalition between members who each strive towards their own outcome (like the Anglo-Batavian condominium vs Austria) or even more deeper, an internal dissidence between factions (like the Whigs and Tories, or earlier Roundheads and Cavaliers or in France between the Royalists and the Frondée). Such a game is still far off.

This is probably true, but we shouldn't assume it's possible. All that's needed is for a developer to have adequate incentive to focus on such things, and that comes from the attitudes of the community. There's a certain amount of conservatism in this community, and I fear that it will prevent EU4 from becoming all it can possibly be (in my opinion).

IMO, the key is to model human psychology more. That is what I intend to do if I ever stop procrastinating and start making 'my game' LOL

Well, you can either approach it from the individual level and model psychological patterns, or you can model social patterns; the former might be slightly more detailed and accurate, but the latter is much much more easy and efficient.

 

[Anthropoid]

This is probably true, but we shouldn't assume it's possible. All that's needed is for a developer to have adequate incentive to focus on such things, and that comes from the attitudes of the community. There's a certain amount of conservatism in this community, and I fear that it will prevent EU4 from becoming all it can possibly be (in my opinion).


Well, you can either approach it from the individual level and model psychological patterns, or you can model social patterns; the former might be slightly more detailed and accurate, but the latter is much much more easy and efficient.

Of course there are emergent social properties that psychology cannot predict. But social models that are built bereft of psychological insight are incomplete.

Durkheim was both correct and incorrect Malinowski improved on structuralism substantially!

No what I had in mind was that all human-composed entities in the game (nations, provinces, cities, neighborhoods, families, couples, individuals) would be more-or-less) modeled on common "person model." They would all be represented by a handful of intrinsic traits: five to seven personaliti-esque factors, plus health, fertility, strength and endurance (maybe intellect too as personality models don't fully represent that).

These 10 or so intrinsic traits would interact with one another, and with contextual forces (culture, events, leaders, social forces, etc.) to produce a handful of emergent characteristics . . . and that is about as far as I've got with it LOL

 

[mcmanusaur]

Of course there are emergent social properties that psychology cannot predict. But social models that are built bereft of psychological insight are incomplete.

Durkheim was both correct and incorrect Malinowski improved on structuralism substantially!

No what I had in mind was that all human-composed entities in the game (nations, provinces, cities, neighborhoods, families, couples, individuals) would be more-or-less) modeled on common "person model." They would all be represented by a handful of intrinsic traits: five to seven personaliti-esque factors, plus health, fertility, strength and endurance (maybe intellect too as personality models don't fully represent that).

These 10 or so intrinsic traits would interact with one another, and with contextual forces (culture, events, leaders, social forces, etc.) to produce a handful of emergent characteristics . . . and that is about as far as I've got with it LOL

I like that idea. The idea I had for adding some more traditionally individual-focused psychological concepts was adding biases to the AI's behavior. There's a long list of cognitive biases, and we're all familiar with biased stereotypes, and I think in many respects it's the fact that AI doesn't demonstrate any such biases that makes them seem significantly less human.

 

[unmerged(815621)]

Fun game indeed Hours... so many hours... !!! I see history in the light of the tradition set out by the Annales, by Bloch, Febvre and Braudel. As such this offers a pretty sound interpretation (compared to its antagonist, Ranke-anism) of history and in my opinion offers a good window for how a game should/could work. History wasn't written in stone before it happened, yes, but several determining factors have always been there. Factors that humans can alter little about, the ebb and flow of life itself was way beyond the power of individual dynasts. Most of this can not - not - be made into a game cause it would make EU IV more complex than (Masters of Orion)². It's hard to pour into a mechanic the century long obsession of England to keep the Low Countries out of the hands of its great rivals such as France, and in turn, the French attempts to ever push their boundary northward along this line. Similarly the Italian mirage that gripped neigbhouring sovereigns in a tight grip is also hard to simulate in in-game mechanics. How to make an AI that can fathom the greater depths of the 1756 Renversement des Alliances and the French loss of trust in their former Prussian allies in the span of mere years? How to implement a system that can simulate a balance between the immovable reality of geography, the secular conjunctural trend and the whisical intricacies of dynastic history?

Not easy that.

Very eloquently put. While the rival system is generally set up to mimic the idea that great powers often tried to keep other great powers in check, it should be a more aggressive system of interventionism (one that should ultimately precede coalitions for moderate expansion). Admittedly, the ability of great nations to project a sphere of influence during this time is much less than during Vicky; however, it was still a prominent driving force for diplomacy (that is fairly easily encodable). One thing that is more difficult to model is the fact that allies will often try an keep each other from expanding in power, often leading to new alliances such as the Diplomatic Revolution you mentioned. To me, history is a representation of the intersection of human desires. The desire for power, peace, solitude, recompense, etc, all shaping the rise and fall of dynasties, the ebb and flow of diplomatic interactions, and the resulting fractionation of the human population into hierarchical class structures.

EU4 (at least its representation in the forums) is a good model of power, recompense, and the desire to push boundaries on the whims of its players.

Even if your kingdom has "King Conquest McMurder" as king, and his son is "King Conquest McMurder II", there is absolutely no guarantee that his great grandson won't end up being "King Live and let Live I". People are different, and not all of them share dreams of World Domination and even if they did, look what happened to the "Great Mongol Empire". Only way this would be possible to simulate was if you were only allowed to play ONE King. After that, some guy taps you in the shoulder and says "My turn, buddy". There is also internal power struggle, betrayal, cultural shifts and so forth. All of these can never be totally simulated. Only warfare can.

This was a real problem for the Habsburgs as well. Some that ended up being rulers, never wanted to be in that position, living lives in slight isolation while their empires fell into disrepair. This, at least to me, was one of the contributing factors to the downfall of the HRE.

 

[Anthropoid]

Very eloquently put. While the rival system is generally set up to mimic the idea that great powers often tried to keep other great powers in check, it should be a more aggressive system of interventionism (one that should ultimately precede coalitions for moderate expansion). Admittedly, the ability of great nations to project a sphere of influence during this time is much less than during Vicky; however, it was still a prominent driving force for diplomacy (that is fairly easily encodable). One thing that is more difficult to model is the fact that allies will often try an keep each other from expanding in power, often leading to new alliances such as the Diplomatic Revolution you mentioned. To me, history is a representation of the intersection of human desires. The desire for power, peace, solitude, recompense, etc, all shaping the rise and fall of dynasties, the ebb and flow of diplomatic interactions, and the resulting fractionation of the human population into hierarchical class structures.

EU4 (at least its representation in the forums) is a good model of power, recompense, and the desire to push boundaries on the whims of its players.

This was a real problem for the Habsburgs as well. Some that ended up being rulers, never wanted to be in that position, living lives in slight isolation while their empires fell into disrepair. This, at least to me, was one of the contributing factors to the downfall of the HRE.

Well said!

 

[King Pyrrhos]

Oh, I know, WC is a SIN and we should stay on the TRUE PATH of building, colonizing and optimizing trade. Nevermind the fact that Napoleon DID try to conquer the world. Nevermind the several warmongering French kings of the Renaissance Period. Japanese invasion of Korea? NEWBZ! Should have colonized the surrounding isles instead. The massacre of Novgorod by Ivan III? Well, at least he got more trade power on the Novgorod node, so he got that going on for him.

He didn't try to conquer the world, but I think you mean he tried to conquer Europe. That is also incorrect. While he did establish France as the leading power on the continent many of his wars were declared on him, but his style included more of an offensive approach. I assume you are referring to things like the invasion of Russia, but even in that war gaining territory wasn't his goal. Instead he wanted to force Russia back into the continental system it had agreed to take part in.