Historical starting position: YES ! Rigid scripted historical process: NO !

[unmerged(8913)]

4. Event-driven historical accuracy means that the player doesn't get an alternative way of playing out the event. Eg. if there WAS a treaty giving the US everything north of the Gadsen purchase, then the US player wouldn't be able to take more or less than that except by non-event mechanisms, which work better anyway.

The problem is when the game engine does not even allow the player to simulate events remotely close to what happened historically. That's when an event is needed, at least for events as important to a country as this one. I certainly don't think a player should be locked into the exact historic choice, but the *possibility* of taking a historical path should be there. As for your complaint about forcing the player to take everything north of the Gadsden Purchase, this could easily be solved in a well written event - just include an option to take *less* territory than was taken in the historical event...

 

[unmerged(8913)]

There's no practical difference between the historic camp and your position.

The historic camp already WANTS the player to have the same decisions as they did historically. If the player can do this via events for the major countries, the AI will get the same set of events with the same choices. Every event already includes instructions on how the AI should choose to resolve the event - with the same choice every time, or randomly.

The historic camp has never argued that the player should be straitjacketed. They've just argued for putting in as many historic events as Paradox can. But it's this same focus on historic events, used partially as a crutch and partially to mollify the historic camp, that is making the game indirectly less popular, by taking Paradox's focus away from those things that make games more popular.

I really don't see how you think that events make the game *less* popular. I know there are quite a few people who choose to play a country based on how many events that country has, both with VIC and EU2. There is a significant number who think more events = equals more interesting game - especially if they are well-designed events that force players to make difficult decisions.

 

[unmerged(5110)]

I don't agree that the inclusion of historical events will have the same effect that I'm going after. Because the events tend to be only relevant when history is going exactly according to plan ; which almost never happens with the player or the AI involved.

For example, what if when Mexico is facing near total defeat, many Great Powers suddenly (perhaps because they were player controlled or something) joined on the side of Mexico? Would the Mexicans still have agreed to cede that much territory? Probably not. But the event would trigger when the certain (limited) conditions were fulfilled. It is pretty much granted that one cannot take into account every single circmstance when creating the triggers for their event.

Thus, the event will suddenly act against the wishes of the event-maker and give the player a decision that their real-life counterpart would not have plausibly had to make.

 

[unmerged(15665)]

More events IMO make the game less bland. I don't believe it gets too deterministic unless there is no B option. What drives me nuts are the huge number of broken events that the game shipped with. For example, why should the player wait for the Crimean War events when all it will gain him are more potential enemies in Sardinia,France, Austria, or Prussia. Ideally the incentive would be that the Tsar of all Slavs event would only be born in 1853, but you can do it starting in 1835. AI Russia declares war on the Ottomans constantly, before and after this date, whether they won or lost. The Tsar of all Slavs event itself doesn't work right because it has triggers in 3 countries, Ottoman,Serbian, and Wallachian, none of which are ever allied to each other again after the first 10 years or so. Since you can't declare war on more than one civilized country at once (makes no sense), this event is all but impossible to accomplish, with the end result being that it and all of the Crimean events are useless. Same with the 2nd Oriental crisis, any Ottoman player should just DOW before they fire if you want to avoid French intervention.

Or how about forming Mughalistan ? The only way it can be done successfully is buying territory from the UK to get a border with trigger countries, since uncivilized can't DOW anyone who isn't their neighbor, and the UK won't surrender a single province even if you occupy all of India. End result, it never gets done. How about Italy ? Sardinia in the extremely unlikely event that it beats Austria and the Two Sicilies, will peace out before getting its overly complicated set of triggers, end result no Italy, ever. Germany ? It's far more likely to remain Prussia until 1920 or accept the pointless color-change event. I could go and and on.. To me there is already a too few events, but the important ones that were included being non-functional is a sign of poor quality control. But, well designed events make it possible to accomplish things that actually happened that are otherwise doomed to failure with this game engine.

 

[unmerged(21992)]

The problem is when the game engine does not even allow the player to simulate events remotely close to what happened historically. That's when an event is needed, at least for events as important to a country as this one. I certainly don't think a player should be locked into the exact historic choice, but the *possibility* of taking a historical path should be there.

The engine needs to be expanded. Not every little thing should be handled by an event mechanism.

Consider this. In the Civil War, if you lose the first time, are you going to give up? Of course not; you're going to wait the five years and try and take over the CSA once again. The event mechanisms in place straitjacket the player, though. There's no support for the easy and obvious method of allowing the player to annex the CSA outright without resorting to an event. Certainly there are custom things that are easily handled by events, but it's better to generalize the structure of the game, and figure out general ways of handling obvious circumstances, rather than special-case everything.

A similar situation would apply to the case of Prussia and the German minors.

As for your complaint about forcing the player to take everything north of the Gadsden Purchase, this could easily be solved in a well written event - just include an option to take *less* territory than was taken in the historical event...

You missed the point by a mile or more. Instead of providing two choices, you provide three, as if that's so much more flexible. So tell me: who decides exactly how much less territory is going to be taken, and where it comes from?

I really don't see how you think that events make the game *less* popular. I know there are quite a few people who choose to play a country based on how many events that country has, both with VIC and EU2. There is a significant number who think more events = equals more interesting game - especially if they are well-designed events that force players to make difficult decisions.

It's an indirect effect. The focus on events and historical versilmitude means that Paradox didn't have the resources to improve the game in other ways. If they'd spent some of that money on, say, getting a crop of inexperienced beta testers, then they would have known before release that Victoria had a very narrow appeal.

In an ideal world, neither events nor core gameplay would suffer, but we don't live in that world and Paradox needs to make tradeoffs. It's my opinion that too much focus is placed on getting lots of little events and not enough on gameplay.

 

[unmerged(21992)]

<Cites broken events, including the Crimean War events, the Indian unification, the Italian unification, the German unification>

I'm co-opting your examples. At least the unification ones.

Rather than have odd unification events, it would be much, much simpler if the AI and the system handled it. For example, if any German or Italian minor get more than 90% of their national claims, they get the tag-change event and become the actual nation. And meanwhile the AI itself would always make foreign-policy decisions favoring the conquerance of its national claims. So Sardinia-Piedmont wouldn't give up on taking Austrian and Italian territory until it held everything that it claims; then it would automatically become Italy, without any need for an event. Such a system would be boosted further by allowing annexation of any country whose capital is a national claim of yours, with a very minor badboy increase.

That would mean that (A) the player doesn't need events to do unification (B) the player can intervene on any side they desire through the alliance system (C) the situation for the AI would probably improve somewhat, since their warmaking would have some sort of focus.

This is what I mean when I say that the event system is inflexible. Everyone knows the hoops you go through for unification events, but there's no need for it if this stuff is better handled by the engine.

 

[Darkrenown]

About the chinese situation, I agree. The conditions for turning civilised are currently too determined by real history. I still think China should remain a powerful "uncivilised" country in AI hands most of the times, but the current form of achieving civilised status by predetermined event only feels strange.

BTW, any country can become civilized in 1.03 if they fufill certain requirements.

 

[unmerged(3856)]

It seems to me that we need to distinguish between two different types of events. The first involves human-AI interactions and the second involves AI-AI interactions.

I personally don't really need any of the former. If I am playing Piedmonte I don't need a unification of Italy event. I am perfectly capable of doing that myself. Same goes for USA/Mexico. If the USA covets what Mexico has then it is within the power of the player to take the appropriate actions. There is absolutely no need for any events whatsoever. In my Italy example, the only event I would look for is one that creates Italy. i.e. my culture changes from North Italian to North/South Italian and I get the Italian flag. Nothing else is needed.

Now AI-AI interactions is a different matter. If I am playing, say, the USA, then it would be nice to see Italy forming. Clearly the AI is not capable of doing this on its own and will need some help. Same goes for USA/Mexico. As a human player there is no way Mexico gets to keep California. If I am playing Mexico then the USA will have to rip it from my dead body. That's fine. No problems here at all. However if I am playing Italy then it would be nice to see some semi-historical developments in North America.

Now to implement this is no mean feat. But then ...

 

[unmerged(16896)]

BTW, any country can become civilized in 1.03 if they fufill certain requirements.

That is an example of a very good alternative history event. Things like that are very useful. For example if you were playing as Persia there is some chance you could have/did modernize to possibly the levels of at least a few of the independent countries like some in South America.

The Russian Balkan events are cool too.

 

[unmerged(15665)]

Rather than have odd unification events, it would be much, much simpler if the AI and the system handled it. For example, if any German or Italian minor get more than 90% of their national claims, they get the tag-change event and become the actual nation.

Silverlight, your example as to how we don't need events to portray unification IS an event. There is no game engine function to tell the AI that if an Italian minor takes 90% of its claims, then it should surrender allowing Italy to form. That is the whole point of events. Instead what you have to do, in lieu of simple, working events is mount a large scale invasion of Austria proper, and if you want anything at all, capture Vienna. This is totally ahistorical, and too difficult for most human players to accomplish let alone a AI, which is why no one ever sees Italy form. The Italy events need to be scrapped anyway as they bear no resemblance to what they're actually supposed to be.

And meanwhile the AI itself would always make foreign-policy decisions favoring the conquerance of its national claims. So Sardinia-Piedmont wouldn't give up on taking Austrian and Italian territory until it held everything that it claims;

You mean until its annexed by Austria. How, using the existing game engine alone, can you simulate a much smaller, less populous, less industrialized country, defeating Austria decisively, multiple times ? You can't, its simply not possible, the AI is too stubborn, and won't make peace with a nation with a drastically lower military score. This is where *good* events come in.

This is what I mean when I say that the event system is inflexible. Everyone knows the hoops you go through for unification events, but there's no need for it if this stuff is better handled by the engine.

The only reason this is, is because every unification event except the one that never happened (Scandinavia), is poorly done. For instance since we are talking about Italy. One of Sardinia's triggers is Messina. But, since they often have no transports, no desire to capture it, and an equally strong Two Sicilies in between them and their objective, they never capture it, and you get no Italy. If people playtested these events they'd know that, and that event would have had more reasonable requirements.

 

[unmerged(16676)]

The problem is when the game engine does not even allow the player to simulate events remotely close to what happened historically. That's when an event is needed, at least for events as important to a country as this one. I certainly don't think a player should be locked into the exact historic choice, but the *possibility* of taking a historical path should be there. As for your complaint about forcing the player to take everything north of the Gadsden Purchase, this could easily be solved in a well written event - just include an option to take *less* territory than was taken in the historical event...

This is exactly what I think also.

As an side, why do some folks feel its unreasonable for players to expect to see 19th century history and events in a game about 19th century history?

The "what you start with is historical, you go from there" is fine, if the game mechanicis allowed you to acchive many of the things that happened in history. I rarely see this, even in 1.02, China still, for example, is remarkably resistant to losing provinces to European Nations. In real history, they certain did, and by the "what you start with" idea, you should be able to take a province here or there. Try it without a massive army. Isn't going to happen. Of course, that is but a single example. The Crimean war events that don't work has been mentioned, the Italian unifacation, all of these.

Quite frankly, if you want to play with "what you start with," its simple enough to remove the game's events files. I can't understand why people are against those that want events having them in the game.

 

[Belissarius]

90% if not more of the events have options to them to simulate choice and with the new ability to script the actual % chance for ech choice in EU it was predetermined that could lead to headaches adding events with an equal likelyhood of being chosen (it was imposible with just one event). So there is multiple routes to most events.

I have seen multiple results in the events.

There has been some incorrect information about the china events to become civilized. they need only lose the first two opium wars to england they dont need to lose to france . What can happen is if they lose to france in a war due to their treaty with france (a treaty they dont have to accept) they can also becone civilized.

Also in 1.03 there is ameans for all nations to become civilized, that not withstanding it makes sence why these losses are needed. If china wins these wars with the europeans she is more likely to view that her own ways are correct and not see the need to reform. Those pale barbarians cant defeat us so we need not change our ways. Very logical.

Events are not designed to force you into doing things thats why most of them are multiple choice. The AI isnt forces (its random, weighted but still random) as to which choice it makes either.

This makes me wonder what the problem is with adding events to simulate things that teh AI is incapable of doing on its own.


Also the arguement that most people wont know the history is irrelavent. Why should your or even the majorities IGNORANCE mean that effort shouldnt be put into events? EU2 and victoria would be poorer games without events than they are with events.

If you dont like events then delete them all. but you'll find the games even less replayable and less enjoyable. The spin frankly the BS possition that events hinder replayability just doesnt stand up to the facts and the fact is that events for the most part are multiple choice so there is multiple ways for the game to play out.

 

[Darkrenown]

That is an example of a very good alternative history event. Things like that are very useful. For example if you were playing as Persia there is some chance you could have/did modernize to possibly the levels of at least a few of the independent countries like some in South America.

Actually, Persia can already do it:

#########################################################################
#  Nasir ud-Din
#########################################################################
event = { 
	id = 7801
	random = no
	country = PER
	
	trigger = {
		flag = { name = flg_Persian_reforms value = 1 }
	}
	
	name = "EVT_7801_NAME"
	desc = "EVT_7801_DESC"
	style = 0
	
	date = { day = 20 month = february year = 1848 }
	
	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME7801A" # Cease the Reforms
		ai_chance = 50
		command = { type = pop_consciousness which = 100 value = -1 }
		command = { type = pop_militancy which = 100 value = -3 }
		command = { type = relation which = ENG value = -50 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME7801B" # Continue the Reforms
		ai_chance = 50
		command = { type = pop_consciousness which = 100 value = 1 }
		command = { type = pop_militancy which = 100 value = 3 }
		command = { type = prestige value = 20 }
		command = { type = relation which = ENG value = 50 }
		command = { type = civilized value = yes }

But as of 1.02 Persia, China and Japan are the only nations which can become civilised.

 

[Dinsdale]

Oh, and just to mention: To those of us that played EUI, remember life before events? It was still a fun game, but the main reason I salivated at the thought of EUII were the events; I nearly lost it when I saw the screenshot of the event firing for England to pick a faction for the English Civil War.

I still play the occasional EU1 game Events have become a bit too much of a fix-all since then, ands sometimes have really hamstrung the AI.

I also agree that the number of events are just about right in Victoria, and though some could be improved, the quality, not quantity is important.

 

[unmerged(21992)]

Quite frankly, if you want to play with "what you start with," its simple enough to remove the game's events files. I can't understand why people are against those that want events having them in the game.

I'm not interested in removing the event files. There's nothing wrong with having the event files, except that Paradox spent ten thousand man-hours on them and there are plainly other things that could have used more time. I just want Paradox to spend their time making a game that will sell more than a thousand copies.

 

[unmerged(17395)]

I'm not completely opposed to scripted events, but some insisting claims for more highly complex events (e.g. for the american-mexican relation) drove me nuts as every additional event will - once again - result in requests for changes (snowball effect).

I've got about the same feeling as silverlight; there are 140 event files and 993 interdependent scripted events (according to the event_text.csv of V 1.02). I hope paradox is keeping a cool head and setting priorities according to its overall goals.

 

[Theodotus1]

After Reading quite many partially narrow-minded claims for more historical accurate events I would like to set a contrast by suggesting that scripted events - if they're outcome is determined - add linearity and predictability to a game and make it less replayable.

The historical setup (starting position; strength and capabilities of countries) and historical context (units, factories etc.) make Victoria authentic, credible - thus adding symbolic value where there is no 'country unknown 1' beating 'country unknown 2', but e.g. UK beating France with 80 cavalry units.
Unimaginative historians who claim for more accuracy of historical outcomes of the gameplay are more likely to enjoy historical movies and books than playing a strategy game where managing the (economic and military) strategy of a nation obviously means changing the history by the player.

3 Examples:
"Playing China you have to lose exactly 1 colonial war against France and 1 against the UK, and - in any case - make sure you do not win any of those wars - otherwise you'll never become civilized !"
I would far more enjoy playing China if those events were canned.

"The Netherlands, which usually only colonizes southeast Asia has gone nuts in Africa"
Great ! This demonstrates the variability of the AI engine and makes the game more replayable than if outcomes were fixed.

"Why was Mexico in the Spanish American war in the first place? If in real life they were ..."
So what ? Why shall an intelligent AI be restricted to historical happenings if it's capable of making its own decisions based on the situational gameplay ?

Good event sequences do not have determinative outcomes.

I agree completely with your points. But that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the event system itself. Individual events may be more or less determinative, but that can be adjusted by adding to the possible outcome choices.

The pre-existing Paradox events are often too narrow in terms of trigger conditions and such. This is why VIP is in the process of readdressing these things.

I won't try to speak for any group other than VIP North America, but in NA Group we endeavor to write events sequences that offer alternative choices. (I've written events for Texas, for example, that allow a military coup and imposition of a dictatorship. If this is chosen, it effects certain later events in terms of possibilities. The events are based on historical research -- I'm a historian, among other things -- but is alternate history if one of the dictatorship options is chosen.) So keep an open mind, please. I, for one, am no fan of deterministic history, and I write a lots NA Group events. (Others do too. We have lots of hard working people over there.)

 

[Theodotus1]

Philosophically, scripted events are a crutch used to trigger sequences of events that the game and its AI would otherwise never be able to simulate. So ideally, if one had a game with AI able to simulate the complex interaction of geostrategic interests, one could have a game system that would dispense with scripted events entirely. However Victoria's AI is not yet able to do that. I don't really "blame" Paradox for that, in truth I really haven't seen any historically oriented game be able to faithfully replicate the complexity of issues/interests/aggression over a game time span that last nearly a century. But ideally that is what you'd want.

This is true.

 

[Theodotus1]

Let me point out that obsession with historical accuracy has a few other associated costs:
1. A lot of time is spent on research instead of playtesting.
2. Historical accuracy is wasted on the 99% of the population that wants a game and not a simulator.
3. As at least a couple of the betas noted, demands for historical accuracy tend to snowball; the more you put in, the more people want.
4. Event-driven historical accuracy means that the player doesn't get an alternative way of playing out the event. Eg. if there WAS a treaty giving the US everything north of the Gadsen purchase, then the US player wouldn't be able to take more or less than that except by non-event mechanisms, which work better anyway.

1. Playtesting was handled by volunteers, not the people who were doing research (afik).

2. The interests of Paradox's customer base cannot be assumed to equate with 99% of the population.

3. Demands do snowball. The modability of the game allows this to be addressed by people like those in VIP.

4. Event-driven historical accuracy only means no alternatives if the events are poorly written. Well-written events allow ahistorical but possible outcomes to come into play. (For example, VIP's Guadalupe Hidalgo event allows Mexico to either offer the historical peace, or refuse to offer it and keep fighting. And the US doesn't have to ask for the peace in the first place -- it can choose instead to keep going and take the whole country, if desired. Nothing determinative about that, and it doesn't lock anyone into a historical outcome. It just allows the possiblity of a historical outcome, which isn't in the game at the moment. That's the thing people like me were unhappy with -- not that the game should follow history, but that it should allow a possiblity of recreating history in certain instances if the player chooses that. As released, Victoria had the flaw of actually not allowing certain historical outcomes to be achieved in a historical manner. I love alternate history and outcomes myself, but if historical outcomes can't be achieved in a historical manner then the game is based on fantasy, not history.)

 

[Theodotus1]

I'm not interested in removing the event files. There's nothing wrong with having the event files, except that Paradox spent ten thousand man-hours on them and there are plainly other things that could have used more time. I just want Paradox to spend their time making a game that will sell more than a thousand copies.

Things got overlooked because of the way the testing process worked, not because time got spent on the event files. Testing that relys on volunteers is typically doomed to fail because too few of the volunteers typically stay with the product throughout the development process. (Some of Derek's comments have indicated that this happened with Victoria.)

If your test pool is inadequate, things get missed. It has nothing to do with time spent on historical research.

Victoria's sales problems had much more to do with distribution fiascos than anything else.