Lack of historical feeling and atmosphere

[contecorti]

The disadvantages of EUII's deterministic system have been publicly aired alongside its merits for the past few months now. This argument has been raging ever since the new system was announced. To summarise how I feel about EUII's events:

Having an event as Russia telling me that I am suffering because Poland burnt Moscow to the ground when in my game they did no such thing is simply stupid. Having Austria inherit Bohemia every single game is stupid. An entire chain of events devoted to Swedish political change following a Thirty Years War that never took place is stupid.

EUII has never been as "historical" as some would make out. After a century of play the events appearing were completely detached from the reality of the game.

The fact that Paradox used a contextual event engine in EUIII gives a pretty strong signal as to what direction they want to move it.

I agree with you, but the only thing which can make happy both communites which love total freedom and historicity is simply by ADDING DYNAMIC EVENTS.
If dynamic events can be created freedom to do everything will be maintained at the same time people which love historicity in a game will enjoy history better than in EU2.As some people point out in the forum there is a good chance that dynamic events which have a base in history can be created.So whatever is Paradox choice it is a win-win solution

 

[unmerged(2619)]

And obviously there are a number of posters here who don't. But you and I are not the ones doing the coding. Paradox made the game that they wanted to make.

Sure, I'm wondering about the results. Sure the loss of some players. Less sure the gain of new players. I think who didn't like EU2, still don't like EU3.
I'm wondering also why Paradox choosed to continue name the game EU and keep a real map with real nation names. Without AI files and with the new engine real map, real nation and the strating year are totally useless (in the meaning they add nothing to the game): it was sufficient a random map, with random countries. In other words they could do a better CIV, instead IMO now we have a worse EU2

 

[unmerged(4444)]

And if we don't straigten them out, we'll be left with no one to do real, historical game/simulations. See, I still think we, Paradox's loyal fans, can have some influence over Johan and crew.

Right, we're not just arguing for the fun of it (well, mostly o), we're hoping that Johan will hear the cries of his people and have mercy on us. At the risk of sacrilege, "For what shall it profit a game, if it shall gain all the cool features in the world, and lose its own soul?"

 

[unmerged(16181)]

2) Nobody, to my knowledge, wants to have Austria and Spain "forced to approach". Nobody, to my knowledge, wants to play a static game taken from the History Chanel.

God, no, not the History Channel. I thought we wanted historical accuracy!

 

[contecorti]

Sure, I'm wondering about the results. Sure the loss of some players. Less sure the gain of new players. I think who didn't like EU2, still don't like EU3.
I'm wondering also why Paradox choosed to continue name the game EU and keep a real map with real nation names. Without AI files and with the new engine real map, real nation and the strating year are totally useless (in the meaning they add nothing to the game): it was sufficient a random map, with random countries. In other words they could do a better CIV, instead IMO now we have a worse EU2

Depaz I think that you are right on most of your points.The problem IMO isn't in the fact that they have used a dynamic AI instead of a prescripted AI (because prescripted AI had a lot of weak points).The main problem is that the pool of events is simply small.What will be important is Paradox patch policy, in other words if they will make as priority the creation of dynamic events perhaps in coordination with the best modders in the forum,to create a pool of events which can both make happy us historicians and total freedom lovers.Dynamic AI BTW can be a real progress if Paradox will give a good support.

 

[Alwin von Arlt]

EU2 was too much like history...

EU3 can be modded like no game before, and there are so many improvement from what I've seen from only having the demo, that I don't see how its a bad thing in anyway...

Just cause things happened 1 way doesn't mean that they couldn't of happen another way... so many events in history was determine by a single battle/event... if you want scripted history... well just make an AI do its thing, just give territory from 1 country to another via event since it happened in history... Then you can watch how the world evolved historical and just watch that rather then playing and doing things on your own.

for me seeing a 1 province austria inherit bohemia/hungry when austria in that game was almost taken over by Switzerland and her allies... yeah I'm sure Bohemia/Hungry would just surrender given that scenario that I've seen...

Calling EU3 a Civ 4 is laughable... why insult EU3 like that, it can be so modded into something more scripted, just do that... there is a reason EU3 is as it is...

 

[Arrenius]

I really like the concept of military tradition/naval tradition too. It never really made sense to me why a 1 province 18th century Prussia(Brandenburg) in EU2 would have a billion elite generals while the 12 province Saxony/Cologne/Bavaria/whatever next door would be denied the great German generals of the era. Despite the fact this "new" AI controlled German power was able to fight and win multiple wars, Prussia hoarded a series of "6" rated generals while just sitting there in its own little splended isolation with its small 10k army.

 

[MacGregor]

I really like the concept of military tradition/naval tradition too. It never really made sense to me why a 1 province 18th century Prussia(Brandenburg) in EU2 would have a billion elite generals while the 12 province Saxony/Cologne/Bavaria/whatever next door would be denied the great German generals of the era. Despite the fact this "new" AI controlled German power was able to fight and win multiple wars, Prussia hoarded a series of "6" rated generals while just sitting there in its own little splended isolation with its small 10k army.

Yes, but that could be gotten around by tying the generals to provinces rather than countries.

 

[unmerged(514)]

[..]
Just cause things happened 1 way doesn't mean that they couldn't of happen another way... so many events in history was determine by a single battle/event... if you want scripted history... well just make an AI do its thing, just give territory from 1 country to another via event since it happened in history... Then you can watch how the world evolved historical and just watch that rather then playing and doing things on your own.

God...oh God! How is it possible that somebody doesn't still get it!

please, please... read on:


Let’s enumerate what the vast majority of us, the critics, *DON’T WANT*, AGAIN:

1) Nobody is asking for the game to doggedly follow history as it starts.

2) Nobody, to my knowledge, wants to have Austria and Spain "forced to approach". Nobody, to my knowledge, wants to play a static game taken from the History Chanel.

3) I cannot atest for everybody, of course, but I guess the large majority of the people here who is in the "other camp", never sugested or implied any kind of unsophistication upon those who like the random way the game now displays.

4) Nobody is saying this game *is* Civilization. However, anybody is entiled his own opinion and yes, anybody can say EU3 *is* Civilization without raising any kind of bad feelings expressely of it.

Now, let's enumerate what we find as thwe most proeminent issues with the game, AGAIN:

1) Once started, the game flow is simply random. Each country acts as like they do not have a past. Only the assigned resouces. AI decision making is the same for all countries, as far as we can tell. We don't want the other countries to simulate human playes. We want thwem to mimic the real motives they had 500 hundred years ago. Now, please note, to mimic the real motives *does not equate* to mimic History. It should all be based on probability. And playing with probabilities for 300 years will certainly provide a very different map and balance of power once the game reaches its end.
There are too few events with too general triggers in the game.

2) Colonization and navigation are poorly implemented. Castille colonizing America in 1460? Teutonic Order in Africa in 1470? One voyage is enough to map the eastern half of the american continent revealing 90% of the land provincies? And what do you think about a conquistador with 1000 men going from Eastern US to California in one trip, losing 65 men in the process and able to replenish the men around 1460? The first time somebody did it was in the XIX century AFAIK...

3) Inheritances are poorly implemented. Provence inheriting Portugal? England inheriting Burgundy? Mecklenburg inherinting Sweden? All of these in 20 years? Nobody is claiming a couple of ahistorical "big" inheritances can't happen in 300 years. They are in fact, welcome! But to have this sort of thing in 20 years, like me?

[..]
for me seeing a 1 province austria inherit bohemia/hungry when austria in that game was almost taken over by Switzerland and her allies... yeah I'm sure Bohemia/Hungry would just surrender given that scenario that I've seen...
[..]

I agree. We see precisely that type of things right now!

 

[Arrenius]

Yes, but that could be gotten around by tying the generals to provinces rather than countries.

I believe warmongering countries should be entitled to a larger selection of battle-harden field commanders. I don't like the gamey concept of "If I hold Corsica on this date, I'll have Napoleon regardless" or the concept of I'll just go for commerce/government ideas and ignore military ideas early on by compensating by acquiring "general rich" regions. It'll turn EU3 multiplayer games into these pointless battles over certain provinces just to obtain certain critical leaders, which is not one of the historical reasons I remember wars being fought for.

 

[Belissarius]

!?when countries inherit eachother like mad

you deliberatly misquoted me. This is what I said

I find it funny that paradox has created perhaps the most historically accurate game ever but people aren't happy because the game doesn’t doggedly follow history once the game starts

Try commenting on the whole sentense or don't bother.

 

[Duuk]

Advantages to EU3: If something goes awry, the game is not horribly screwed. If it turns out that Navarre inherits Castille and becomes the dominant Iberian power, likely they'll colonize the Americas anyway. They wouldn't do that in EU2.

One thing I *do* wish is one massive change and one "add on":

When contextual events (events based specifically on game situations and not just "random" events) occur, there should be historical blurbs as to "When this happened in <X> in <year>". That would make the game "feel" more historical. For example, if Venice unified the Holy Roman Empire (bear with me here) and a series of "German Nationalist Revolts" occurred, it could use text describing the revolt of the Dutch from Spain as "historical backdrop". This would be a massive change from the current system but really would only require the work of the historical research team. Each and every event could have a historical blurb in it, which is, I think, what most of the "Historical" people want: The feel that the game is modelling stuff that happened historically.

As to the add-on: We need about 1,000 more events. At least. Even if the triggers are VERY obscure and not at all likely to occur, we need vastly more events. Poland-Lithuania's personal union turning into a unification could be modelled by a "Unify the Crowns?" event that describes the historical path. The trigger would be "personal union, +190 or more relations, PU for at least 40 years". It could happen for ANYONE, too, so the event need not specify POL-LIT.

A country post reformation with a RM to a Catholic Country, negative relations to that Catholic Country, Negative relations to the Pope, high innovative: "Your King is Heirless... Petetion the Pope for a divorce?" This could trigger a series of events between the country and the Pope, each selecting results like "Grant the Petition" which would piss off the RM'd country (and grant a CB) or "Deny the Petetion" which would kick back an event to the King... "Seperate the Church?" Coupled above, the text would discuss Henry VIII and the creation of the Anglican Church but need not be tied to ENG.

I'm a big proponent of contextual events, but to have the historical feel we need literally bunches of them. I'd suggest getting out the original EU2 event files, dusting them off, and converting 90% of them into contextual non-nation specific events. Some of them might need cultural or religious modifiers but the game engine can handle that.

If the Devs do that, I can wager that the "OMG HISTORY CIV4 OH NOES" people would die happy, and it would be fine with the Historically Plausible crowd (like me) because it would 1) give us more events <yay!> and 2) never put us in a position where an event fires that makes no sense at all.

 

[minority]

-snip-

1) Once started, the game flow is simply random. Each country acts as like they do not have a past. Only the assigned resouces. AI decision making is the same for all countries, as far as we can tell. We don't want the other countries to simulate human playes. We want thwem to mimic the real motives they had 500 hundred years ago. Now, please note, to mimic the real motives *does not equate* to mimic History. It should all be based on probability. And playing with probabilities for 300 years will certainly provide a very different map and balance of power once the game reaches its end.
There are too few events with too general triggers in the game.

2) Colonization and navigation are poorly implemented. Castille colonizing America in 1460? Teutonic Order in Africa in 1470? One voyage is enough to map the eastern half of the american continent revealing 90% of the land provincies? And what do you think about a conquistador with 1000 men going from Eastern US to California in one trip, losing 65 men in the process and able to replenish the men around 1460? The first time somebody did it was in the XIX century AFAIK...

3) Inheritances are poorly implemented. Provence inheriting Portugal? England inheriting Burgundy? Mecklenburg inherinting Sweden? All of these in 20 years? Nobody is claiming a couple of ahistorical "big" inheritances can't happen in 300 years. They are in fact, welcome! But to have this sort of thing in 20 years, like me?

-snip-

Well, with #2 and #3, I'm sure it can be tweaked within the context of the current engine's capabilities (prolly just change a few values to balance).

Now for #1, perhaps the AI does follow DP sliders and its own Geopolitical situation (which is vital for a dynamic game). This also raises the question: what are the AIs preferences in DP sliders? Surely not all the same?

As for history, perhaps the DP sliders and the like can be taken to be the results of the convolution of past events. In that if a country has gone through great religious conservative movements, then perhaps the narrowminded slider should be great, and hence present AI works according to that.

But maybe if a new monarch with high ADM sees this as wrong, he may try to reverse the narrowmindedness trend.

Now I do not know how the AI works, but the point is, this problem can actually be fixed without changing the core structure of the game. It can be dealt with instead by a more adept AI. Which is quite another story.

cheers

 

[Belissarius]

I remember the days that articles were given about how educational EU2 was. The days of how classes were being taught with EU2 and how people on these boards learned the histories of countries they had never known existed.

Now the EU3 generation. All they care about is the I can do anything, I can be anything stuff that is taught to every child. They say they are broadening their horizons by being limitless. They says that because anything is possible everything should be possible. They say they are realizing the true potential they have in the imaginary world they have created.

Then they face real life and see that Venice had bigger problems on its borders that could not be solved by exploring South America. They see that Granada should not have been able to retake Spain since a final crusade would have been called to defend what was seen as the most devout catholic nation. They see that when Hannover inherited the crown of Britain in 1714, Hannover did not annex Britain. They see that Palatinate really was a small country that never cared about anything outside of Europe. They see that the King of France and the Emporer of China would not have done the same thing if they were given the same situations.

Its nice to be hopeful and optimistic and limitless but sometimes you have to break out of this and learn about reality. No matter how good the EU engine becomes, it will never create plausible scenarios. No matter how good the AI becomes, it will never make decisions that were in the short term dumb as hell but pay off in the end. No matter how good the graphics become, it will never mask the fact that Mecklenburg now owns Sweden. No matter how dynamic events are, they will never teach me about the 16th Century like event texts used to.

All Paradox had to do to please the "determinists" was to leave the files and event system somewhere in there so that it could be salvaged but they have denied them even that.

Hannover did NOT inherit England it was the Act of Settlement 1701 that was passed in parliment that deliberatly bypassed catholic jeirs in favour of King George I. Also parliment had become supreme at this point and no nation could inherit England. Its goverment form had changed such that it was safe from being inherited because its Monarchs where now chosen by parliment not simple inheritance. I don't know if this is implimented in the game as i am still waiting for my full copy. But you are completly missleading people about hannover inheriting England.

Also EU2 is a TERRIBLE teaching tool for history. If it was actually used in schools i feel sorry for the students. What to know about history do what intelligent people do, the read books. Thats how you learn.

There were no files to leave in!! you are manufactoring false facts to support your statements. They didn't deny you the event files because they didnt make them. They looked at events and they ask what was the underlying cause (as best as can be determined) of an event in history and they then took this cause or causes and formulated events based on these that effects everyone.

 

[Belissarius]

EUII has never been as "historical" as some would make out. After a century of play the events appearing were completely detached from the reality of the game.

Are you "in the know" to be sure what Paradox really thinks to "facilitate"?

The fact that Paradox used a contextual event engine in EUIII gives a pretty strong signal as to what direction they want to move it.

You can also add this quote from Johan as another big clue.

It wasn't that odd for this to happen in the HRE lands not conected by borders would be inherited at various times.

AGCEEP would do a terrible job at "dealing" with this issue. First they would use deterministic events to force the game to deal with inheritence and thats what EU3 is specificly avioding with its new event system. Second people are simply too hung up on ahistorical = wrong or silly. Fact is that the game already deals with non core non culture provinces in the game as it stands. I have noticed that non favoured culture rebelions are not rare. If you don't rule in a light handed way (ie lower taxes) you will get rebelions and if you are heavy handed enough you will lose more than one province this way.

Too many people jump to the conclusion that because this didn't happen historicaly the game is "flawed" for having "odd" or "silly" events. I like that every game I play is completely different that i can't prepare for the inevidable event. I have to be completely prepared for the unexpected like france inheriting scotland which very nearly happen in real life. (Which happen to me as England) It was a nightmare having the huge manpower giant of France to the north and across the channel. yet people hear are up in arms because it's not historical so therefore a problem?

This is EU3 not EU2.5. Time and time again Johan has said the this is a game not a historical simulation, about EU2. THe direction is to get away from historical determinism not towards even greater determinism.

I find it refreshing to see a poster that understands the underlying design of an aspect of the game so clearly. POTM nomination worthy.

 

[Featauril]

The problem IMO isn't in the fact that they have used a dynamic AI instead of a prescripted AI (because prescripted AI had a lot of weak points).The main problem is that the pool of events is simply small.

I agree, but realise that pretty much every paradox game ships with too few events, it's the mods that usually give us the events that make the game better. Play Brazil in vanilla Victoria and then in VIP, you'll see a huge difference.

There is a distinct lack of both 'flavour' events and just plain events, not much is happening to me in my EU3 games and I find that boring.

However, I am sure that many people will soon have many ideas for new events and the game will become much better because of it.

 

[Duuk]

I hated the VIP even more than I hated normal Vicky. Specifically, the idiotic events.

Progressive, wealthy Mexico? Doesn't matter, you're pwned by "foreign debt" events.

Tolerant, Liberal Turkish republic with your best buddy Russia? Doesn't matter, you're at war for repressing minorities!

 

[Sir Humphrey]

I thought VIP was great, and added so much to the experience of the game.

And all the worrying about events, thats what event triggers are for.

Also EU2 is a TERRIBLE teaching tool for history. If it was actually used in schools i feel sorry for the students. What to know about history do what intelligent people do, the read books. Thats how you learn.

+1.

When contextual events (events based specifically on game situations and not just "random" events) occur, there should be historical blurbs as to "When this happened in <X> in <year>". That would make the game "feel" more historical. For example, if Venice unified the Holy Roman Empire (bear with me here) and a series of "German Nationalist Revolts" occurred, it could use text describing the revolt of the Dutch from Spain as "historical backdrop". This would be a massive change from the current system but really would only require the work of the historical research team. Each and every event could have a historical blurb in it, which is, I think, what most of the "Historical" people want: The feel that the game is modelling stuff that happened historically.

+1.

Look what happened with Crusader Kings, and the difference between the release and 1.05 patch. 1.05 introduced truely proper events system and made it really great, and made the whole "contextual" system work well.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

This is EU3 not EU2.5. Time and time again Johan has said the this is a game not a historical simulation, about EU2. THe direction is to get away from historical determinism not towards even greater determinism.

I know many folks dearly loved the scripted events in EU2. But, seriously, didn't EU2 achieve just about everything that could be accomplished in the scripted omniscience genre? Was it really necessary to make the same game all over again?

Give the new game a chance. Embrace the dynamic unpredictability. After all, that's what the lowly mortals who lived back then had to do.

 

[Basileios I]

Give the new game a chance. Embrace the dynamic unpredictability. After all, that's what the lowly mortals who lived back then had to do.

Still the game has outcomes which are not even remotely realistic. Such as Venice colonising the New World or Russia colonising in Africa. That's not "historically plausible" for me ... and it was always Paradox's self-declared goal to produce a game which delivers plausible outcomes rather than just repeating history.

EU3 does neither.