Lack of historical feeling and atmosphere

[AdmiralNelson]

And while I am a fan of plausibility, this doesn't bother me in the least : this is within the realms of the possible. Actually, if it were not for Jeanne D'Arc God only knows what France would be now... probably a small page of history books...

The problem (at least for me) is when the total number of unlikely to nearly impossible or outrightly impossible things begin to pile up together at an alarming rate, turning the game into a laughable patchwork for the making of "the unlikely world"...

I have no qualms with, say Brandenbourg, going to colonize America ion 1500. I begin to frown if Milan does the same. I start watching in disbelief it it is followed by Croatia. And I throw the game by the window if the Templar close the march...

Yves

I think everybody agrees that colonization by minors is something that needs to be dealt with, in favor of limiting colonization by minors.

 

[Ampoliros]

Hello all.
I have been following this thread (parts of it at least).
I for my part am quite ok with an alternate history but I have one question :

Is it possible to mod events? Is it possible to input more complex eventchains into this alternate historical universe? Is it - in short - possible to create an alternate historical reality using ones fantasy?

Thank you.

 

[AdmiralNelson]

Hello all.
I have been following this thread (parts of it at least).
I for my part am quite ok with an alternate history but I have one question :

Is it possible to mod events? Is it possible to input more complex eventchains into this alternate historical universe? Is it - in short - possible to create an alternate historical reality using ones fantasy?

Thank you.

Yes, very much so.

 

[andbene]

I also feel that some historic background was missed in this game.
But can we expect in some months an AGPEEC like Mod or the new scripting engine miss some feature needed to recreate the feeling of EU2 historic flow ?
I was used to play 2-3 hours per week at EU2 and this goes ahead for the last year. Very nice to interract with history. With EU3 I feel a bit bored after 6 hours of play....

 

[yvesp]

If you don't like your games too historical you have the basic version. If you want more events.. CREATE THEM YOURSELF. There is nothing stopping you. Paradox wanted to create a clean slate to allow the community to create scenarios THEY like.

Oh! So fun !!!

Why should I take 100 hours from my quite valuable time to script for a game that I bought ????

When Paradox has all the right stuff from the previous games and the knowledge to put them together ?

Well, that was a good joke! :rofl:

Yves

 

[Ampoliros]

Yes, very much so.

Swell. In this case...I for one am completely satisfied.

I am sure some bright fellows out of our community will create flexible, circumstancedependant events which will be similar if not the same as history IRL. This will be history in its true form, alternative choices and their consequences.

Fundamentaly speaking....we shall be living each individual history for the first time.

 

[AdmiralNelson]

You're going to have to explain that one to me. Name one thing that ever happened randomly in history (I can think of a thought experiment setting up a random or chance happening, but it involves the laws of QM crossing the threshold into the world where classical physics rules). I mean truly, metaphysically random, not just ignorance of the conditions that determined them. Or, as I suspect, did you just choose an unfortunate phrase and really have some other idea in mind?

To take Portuguese history for example, if Cabral's expedition had not been blown off course, Portuguese colonization of Brazil might have been very different or might not have occurred at all. That is the element of chance is talking about.

Again, people against those who want a little more historical flavor mischaraterize what we want. NO ONE that i've seen has been calling for following history to a T. We just want a game that uses the same alphabet as history.



Couple of points. One, once again you are seriously mangling what the historists want. Two, it shouldn't always be up to the gamer to make the game that claims historic roots to unfold at least in a plausible manner. Anything is "possible", but the vast majority of those possible things are not in the least bit likely and strike people oddly when they see them. A few anamolys are good; but when the whole world is beyond recognition in a few years, that in my mind is bad.

Anyway, I think most of us historicists have given up on EUIII being what we want it to be; an improved EUII. We have to accept it's just gone a different direction. Yes, I will probably buy it because I love Paradox products and feel great loyalty to them. And I love the fact that Johan is willing to take a chance and follow his own vision. And it may, in fact, turn out that he is right after all. I pray that is so.

But quit casting dispersions on those of us who currently disagree with that vision as we understand it, and more importantly, quit mangling our arguments into something unrecognizable. I can take the name calling, but having to set people straight the umpteenth time is getting annoying.

I wrote this in a post a few pages back: if the player were to play Mataram in EUIII and do nothing for 300+ years, would you like it if history was replicated, for the most part? Is that what the "historicists" would like?

I can't word that in a way that doesn't like I'm insulting that perspective, but I don't mean to insult that perspective, I'm just trying to understand EXACTLY what it is you desire.

 

[AdmiralNelson]

Oh! So fun !!!

Why should I take 100 hours from my quite valuable time to script for a game that I bought ????

When Paradox has all the right stuff from the previous games and the knowledge to put them together ?

Well, that was a good joke! :rofl:

Yves

I will let Ampoliros say what I would say.

I am sure some bright fellows out of our community will create flexible, circumstancedependent events which will be similar if not the same as history IRL.

 

[Nimic]

Oh! So fun !!!

Why should I take 100 hours from my quite valuable time to script for a game that I bought ????

When Paradox has all the right stuff from the previous games and the knowledge to put them together ?

Well, that was a good joke! :rofl:

Yves

That's ridiculous. They made the game they wanted to make. Then you buy it (presumably) and complain about it. They were so kind to include a way to change things you don't like. Get it?

 

[unmerged(39353)]

I wrote this in a post a few pages back: if the player were to play Mataram in EUIII and do nothing for 300+ years, would you like it if history was replicated, for the most part? Is that what the "historicists" would like?
.

No, its not.

I want to allow AI to behave ahistorically, but with historical probability.

I will explain it on these examples:

example 1)
Teutonic Knights colonize Africa - totally ahistoric. Shouldnt happened as they werent sailors.
Teutonic Knights annexing Lithuania - ahistoric, but historically probable.
Teutonic Knights creating empire in Eastern europe - ahistoric too, but historically probable.

example 2)
Milan, Norway, Spain, Poland colonizing North America - totally ahistoric
England, France, Portugal and Netherlands colonizing NA - ahistoric, but historically probable (as Portugal could not discover Brazil)

example 3)
Ethiopian king is the Holy Roman Emperor - totally ahistoric
French king is the Holy Roman Emperor - ahistoric, but historically probable, as France could annex many german states, that was really possible

 

[MacGregor]

To take Portuguese history for example, if Cabral's expedition had not been blown off course, Portuguese colonization of Brazil might have been very different or might not have occurred at all. That is the element of chance is talking about.

Calling that "chance" is a very loose use of language. But i understand that it is a colloqual way of speaking, but strictly speaking, there was no chance at all in that event, except in the arena of foreknowledge. The actual events were absolutely determined. But I know that's not what you're talking about.

I wrote this in a post a few pages back: if the player were to play Mataram in EUIII and do nothing for 300+ years, would you like it if history was replicated, for the most part? Is that what the "historicists" would like?

The choice of a boring country would be my responsibility. But i would like for France to act to a reasonable degree like France, England like England and the Cherokee Nation to reasonably act like the Cherokee nation. American Indian tribes monopolizing the COT in Andulasia in the late 1400s (like I just read about in another thread) IS NOT something I'd like to see when playing any nation, unless I was that Indian nation and caused the monopolizaion through my own hard efforts (and even then I would be disappointed I could actually do it).

 

[unmerged(12910)]

Not because of some god-ordained plan, or an insane adherence to the marxistic history view.

but EU3 is currently sort of ultra liberal history view

 

[yvesp]

You didn't play much EU2 then. Any French player worth a damn would crush the protestants early with missionaries and prevent their spread. It was the best overall strategy for tech and stability costs.

So by the time the "Wars of Religion" events came around, I was usually 100% Catholic.

Ah ! you were refering to EU2 ingame mecanism... was not obvious. Thought you were speaking about history and did not understand.

Yes, in such regards, I agree that EU2 events were not quite fullfilling ; I am not in the crowd of those who want a lot of hard-coded events, but I certainly feel that some of them should be included in order for the game to have some kind of historical feeling : what's the likehood of getting Austria-Spain joined together for 2 centuries in EU3 ?

Such events shoud not fire automatically, if only to provide for "alternate" possibilities. But playing the "alternate" is not always what I desire... and with EU3 I'll always get the "alternate" which will never bear any ressemblance to the "actual"...

On the other hand, EU2 certainly had too many events disconnected from reality (some have mentionned bankruptcy for Spain and that's a good exemple). Those "small" events should either be ejected from the game or included as a part of broader events connected to the state of the country (dynamic events as we have them in EU3).

Yves

 

[AdmiralNelson]

No, its not.

I want to allow AI to behave ahistorically, but with historical probability.

I will explain it on these examples:

example 1)
Teutonic Knights colonize Africa - totally ahistoric. Shouldnt happened as they werent sailors.
Teutonic Knights annexing Lithuania - ahistoric, but historically probable.
Teutonic Knights creating empire in Eastern europe - ahistoric too, but historically probable.

example 2)
Milan, Norway, Spain, Poland colonizing North America - totally ahistoric
England, France, Portugal and Netherlands colonizing NA - ahistoric, but historically probable (as Portugal could not discover Brazil)

example 3)
Ethiopian king is the Holy Roman Emperor - totally ahistoric
French king is the Holy Roman Emperor - ahistoric, but historically probable, as France could annex many german states, that was really possible

Most of that is perfectly reasonable, I think.

Norway would not be such an odd nation to see colonizing N.A. There was Vinland, after all. The Norwegians (when they weren't called "Danish subjects") wouldn't always be so preoccupied with European affairs to be unable to mess around in Newfoundland.

Spain did control Florida.



I would expect to see some of that in a "Strange Screenshots" thread (and I believe I have, in the EUII S.S. thread), so our preferences are not that far apart (which was my suspicion to begin with, as a history fan myself).

 

[VikingKing]

Simply attacking people who disagree with you makes most things you say of less value.



You're going to have to explain that one to me. Name one thing that ever happened randomly in history (I can think of a thought experiment setting up a random or chance happening, but it involves the laws of QM crossing the threshold into the world where classical physics rules). I mean truly, metaphysically random, not just ignorance of the conditions that determined them. Or, as I suspect, did you just choose an unfortunate phrase and really have some other idea in mind?



Again, people against those who want a little more historical flavor mischaraterize what we want. NO ONE that i've seen has been calling for following history to a T. We just want a game that uses the same alphabet as history.



Couple of points. One, once again you are seriously mangling what the historists want. Two, it shouldn't always be up to the gamer to make the game that claims historic roots to unfold at least in a plausible manner. Anything is "possible", but the vast majority of those possible things are not in the least bit likely and strike people oddly when they see them. A few anamolys are good; but when the whole world is beyond recognition in a few years, that in my mind is bad.

Anyway, I think most of us historicists have given up on EUIII being what we want it to be; an improved EUII. We have to accept it's just gone a different direction. Yes, I will probably buy it because I love Paradox products and feel great loyalty to them. And I love the fact that Johan is willing to take a chance and follow his own vision. And it may, in fact, turn out that he is right after all. I pray that is so.

But quit casting dispersions on those of us who currently disagree with that vision as we understand it, and more importantly, quit mangling our arguments into something unrecognizable. I can take the name calling, but having to set people straight the umpteenth time is getting annoying.

First off no offense but you don't even have this game. To answer you respone of "I played the Demo" The Demo is very very little like the game. So I must gather your taking your ideas from those who have posted in the forum which as has been mentioned earlier would be a very poor sample. As they say in business for every one person that gives a good comment 4 others will give/write a bad one. People are more likely to write about bad experiences than good ones.

I am not insulting you or any said "historists" whatever you want to label yourself it seems more like tolling than anything else. My "attacks", of which they shouldn't be deemed such, were not attacks at all simply defending myself from attacks by "historists" who seem to claim that they simply want to follow history and everyone else wants to play civilizations.

So sorry if you think that is insulting in any manner. I find it insulting that its being implied that if I like EUIII than I must not really like history and I must want it to be like civilizations. In most message boards insulting a game without giving suggestions for improvement is called TROLLING.

If EU3 was exactly like EU2 in events, engine etc how many people would buy it? People don't like the 3-D map and other items. There are only a few things that sepperate EU3 from EU2, this is the engine and the basic core of the game. They made it dynamic instead of static.

There are a lot of things that needed to be fixed. I would rather they fix Multi Player than simply adding a massive number of A-historical events because frankly if the event is unlikely to happen in the timeline of the game it is not historical. I fail to see how an England fighting a civil war should be colonizing North America or how Portugal with no knowledge of Brazil should be sitting on their ass waiting for it.

 

[EUnderhill]

Calling that "chance" is a very loose use of language. But i understand that it is a colloqual way of speaking, but strictly speaking, there was no chance at all in that event, except in the arena of foreknowledge. The actual events were absolutely determined. But I know that's not what you're talking about.



The choice of a boring country would be my responsibility. But i would like for France to act to a reasonable degree like France, England like England and the Cherokee Nation to reasonably act like the Cherokee nation. American Indian tribes monopolizing the COT in Andulasia in the late 1400s (like I just read about in another thread) IS NOT something I'd like to see when playing any nation, unless I was that Indian nation and caused the monopolizaion through my own hard efforts (and even then I would be disappointed I could actually do it).

The situation I posited in more concrete terms: If you are playing Portugal and chose to take up the mantle of the requonquista and go after North Africa, would you or would you not expect another nation to find her way around Africa to India?

 

[AdmiralNelson]

Calling that "chance" is a very loose use of language. But i understand that it is a colloqual way of speaking, but strictly speaking, there was no chance at all in that event, except in the arena of foreknowledge. The actual events were absolutely determined. But I know that's not what you're talking about.

I'm not sure what is "absolutely determining" those events.

The choice of a boring country would be my responsibility. But i would like for France to act to a reasonable degree like France, England like England and the Cherokee Nation to reasonably act like the Cherokee nation. American Indian tribes monopolizing the COT in Andulasia in the late 1400s (like I just read about in another thread) IS NOT something I'd like to see when playing any nation, unless I was that Indian nation and caused the monopolizaion through my own hard efforts (and even then I would be disappointed I could actually do it).

I don't have a problem with that.

 

[VikingKing]

Calling that "chance" is a very loose use of language. But i understand that it is a colloqual way of speaking, but strictly speaking, there was no chance at all in that event, except in the arena of foreknowledge. The actual events were absolutely determined. But I know that's not what you're talking about.



The choice of a boring country would be my responsibility. But i would like for France to act to a reasonable degree like France, England like England and the Cherokee Nation to reasonably act like the Cherokee nation. American Indian tribes monopolizing the COT in Andulasia in the late 1400s (like I just read about in another thread) IS NOT something I'd like to see when playing any nation, unless I was that Indian nation and caused the monopolizaion through my own hard efforts (and even then I would be disappointed I could actually do it).

Yes the Indian's colonizing COTs in Europe is extremly annoying. From what I gather Paradox is actually working on fixing that.

Before Paradox releases a bunch of events, of which I hope they release dynamic events, they should fix Multiplaer along with other problems including, but not limited to, the text that bunches up sometimes.

As for events I think everyone believes there should be more dynamic events being added, I have not see anyone who believes that there should be none. However what most don't want are hardcoded events that fire off no matter what and to play the same game over and over again.

What I also don't like is when people compare this to civilizations. Of course its better than being compared to MTW series (of which almost nothing is historical)

 

[Skarion]

Most of that is perfectly reasonable, I think.

Norway would not be such an odd nation to see colonizing N.A. There was Vinland, after all. The Norwegians (when they weren't called "Danish subjects") wouldn't always be so preoccupied with European affairs to be unable to mess around in Newfoundland.

Which is interesting as it was Christianity and the centralisation process which stopped their colonisation and medling in European affairs, how would that be handled by the global AI when most of the time a centralised state is needed for colonization?

 

[MacGregor]

The situation I posited in more concrete terms: If you are playing Portugal and chose to take up the mantle of the requonquista and go after North Africa, would you or would you not expect another nation to find her way around Africa to India?

Of course. I see your point, but don't really think that going on a reconquista to North Africa would prevent sailing expeditions curtailing Portugese explorations. Those things, on a scale of a trading nation, are very minor costs and necessary to the country's continued dominance in that sphere, making them almost insignificant compared to the costs of invasion of hostile nations. So you are setting up a false dichotomy. It wouldn't have been an either/or, but probably a "both" with success in the first and failure in the second.