Lack of historical feeling and atmosphere

[AdmiralNelson]

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?

I just noticed your avatar.

I was trying to tell a Scandinavian about Scandinavian history. o

In EUII, Norway never had any explorers and I don't think Denmark did either until late in the game, so that was never a problem.

In EUIII, everybody can explore after choosing QftNW and recruiting an explorer so there's nothing stopping them, I don't think, except wanting to focus on something else.

The AI either cares about the situation in Europe or it doesn't and goes off colonizing. The current problem seems to be that too many nations ignore the European situation in favor of colonization.

 

[MacGregor]

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

That's a discussion getting us off into OT land regarding philosophy and physics. Let's just say that that is the accepted position of over 99% of physical scientists in the world. The events were absolutely determined by physical laws acting upon prior conditions (with a small, miniscule possibility of some quantum randomness seeping through). In other words, the Big Bang did it.

 

[yvesp]

Of course they could have - however, they historically focussed on South and Central America and the Caribbean because these areas were much much more profitable and suited for early conquest and exploitation. That Spain, Portugual, or any other country which had the opportunity to establish colonies in this early period would have focussed on North America instead is pretty implausible.

However currently, the EU3 engine doesn't really model this economic pull particularly well...

That's a certainly bad view about history.

There was no 6 planted out on the island to indicate what it would bring, and, written just below a : "plant sugar, it'll make you rich" panel...

Spain settled in the Carribean because:
* these were the first island they found accross the see and they had to build a place to stop and refill their ships
* these islands were closer to Spain than any other area know to them
* they were convinced of being close to india supposed "big riches", so they kept on pilling there...

Note that the place was so badly suited for colonization that it fast required slaves to be worked (climate too harsh for poor europeans).

Later they stuck to Central America just because it happened that some guy with a handfull of men did capture a whole empire there... and later, another fearless guy repeated the same trick south of there! Needless to say that this was enough to keep Spanish hands full for some time!

And all of this happened for only one reason : search for gold ; not search for new territories... As it turned out, they finally got both!

EU games are historically turning history upside down as players try to colonize to get new territories (and deny them to their opponents) knowing that this would reap great benefits in the future, while this was hardly the motive that drove the early colonization rush...

A good move in EU3 would be to hide the expected tax value of territories, hide the natives and in particular their level of aggressiveness and ferocity (you'd know about them only after your first attempt), and maybe even hide what the province can produce... I guess you'd be a lot more careful in colonizing!!!

Yves

 

[Skarion]

I just noticed your avatar.

I was trying to tell a Scandinavian about Scandinavian history. o

In EUII, Norway never had any explorers and I don't think Denmark did either until late in the game, so that was never a problem.

In EUIII, everybody can explore after choosing QftNW and recruiting an explorer so there's nothing stopping them, I don't think, except wanting to focus on something else.

The AI either cares about the situation in Europe or it doesn't and goes off colonizing. The current problem seems to be that too many nations ignore the European situation in favor of colonization.

I know. I just wanted to add a discussion about how the global AI function and how it could be patched later on to create a dynamic realistic feeling behind it. And by this way see if dynamic supporters may see out of a historical (not deterministic, I mean to look how everything actually was) view while determinists can look more on a gamey experience.

I want to bring this discussion up as I haven't seen anyone come up with a actual point the last 10 pages.

Because we can all face it, in reality nations didn't become colonizing powers because of that they choosed a national idea (QftNW) or got a event which told the nation to begin to colonise. Also why is often religion changing the ammount of colonists you get?

In most modern books it's mostly stated that you needed a centralised state and yadda yadda to accomplish colonisation.

Now you brought in Norway, a nation which belong to the Nordic group during the viking age (Mind you, no Scandinavian was colonisating during the timeframe) and that don't fit to any of the topics at hand. It didn't follow a certain event, it didn't select a national idea and it wasn't centralised. Even it rather abondoned colonisation when the usual events began to apply.

So why did Scandinavia began to colonise the world?

 

[EUnderhill]

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.

First of all I do not believe my dichotomy to be false, and if so, not by intent. In either case you still have not answered the question posed regarding how such a historical vacuum ought be filled if at all.

 

[AdmiralNelson]

That's a discussion getting us off into OT land regarding philosophy and physics. Let's just say that that is the accepted position of over 99% of physical scientists in the world. The events were absolutely determined by physical laws acting upon prior conditions (with a small, miniscule possibility of some quantum randomness seeping through). In other words, the Big Bang did it.

I think the "human element" clashes a little with that.

Certainly, we have to eat, but nothing governs what we eat except personal preference. And we can choose to ignore preference if we really feel like it. And if we really feel like it, we can not eat at all.

 

[yvesp]

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?

Yes ; but they cheat on me by calling this Europa Universalis 3, a name from which I expect something specific (namely : history, events, monarchs, leaders).

So I have a right to complain, because they call it by that name to lure me into buying it blindly when that's a product I would not buy if I had no specific expectations about it...

Yves

 

[AdmiralNelson]

Yes ; but they cheat on me by calling this Europa Universalis 3, a name from which I expect something specific (namely : history, events, monarchs, leaders).

So I have a right to complain, because they call it by that name to lure me into buying it blindly when that's a product I would not buy if I had no specific expectations about it...

Yves

It's not their fault you bought their game. Perhaps you should have waited before purchasing it and checked around on these forums to see the initial response.

 

[unmerged(39353)]

In EU3 countries just lacks of its own character.

Even in CIV different countries presents different style of play. Germans are usually aggresive and militaristic (as they were through the whole history), Spaniards are expansionistic, Russians too, Egyptians focuses on science...
these little features allow nations to be unique, act differently than others.

In EU3 the difference between countries lies only in their start position, not culture or historic experience.

Events and AI Files in EU2 werent perfect of course, but their role was to prevent countries from deviating too much (not completly, but to certain level) from their historical course, which was determined by cultural goals, rulers personal goals (not always rational) etc

 

[EUnderhill]

Yes ; but they cheat on me by calling this Europa Universalis 3, a name from which I expect something specific (namely : history, events, monarchs, leaders).

So I have a right to complain, because they call it by that name to lure me into buying it blindly when that's a product I would not buy if I had no specific expectations about it...

Yves

Should I have complained when I bought EUII that it had scripted monarchs and RTS rather than the random monarchs and 5 year turns I had come to expect from the boardgame?

 

[unmerged(786)]

Spain settled in the Carribean because:

A good move in EU3 would be to hide the expected tax value of territories, hide the natives and in particular their level of aggressiveness and ferocity (you'd know about them only after your first attempt), and maybe even hide what the province can produce... I guess you'd be a lot more careful in colonizing!!!

Yves

Nice idea, I would like to have this option available in the game.

 

[Toom]

I think the "human element" clashes a little with that.

Certainly, we have to eat, but nothing governs what we eat except personal preference. And we can choose to ignore preference if we really feel like it. And if we really feel like it, we can not eat at all.

There is no “human element”(unless you believe in souls or similar supernatural things).

Human behaviour is not governed by different laws than those of the rest of the universe, it’s just that there are millions of factors deciding our actions, so even if they might seem random there’s always a cause for everything.

If eu3 was a perfect game history should repeat exactly as it did in real life, in a hands off game.

 

[unmerged(39353)]

Nice idea, I would like to have this option available in the game.

That was in Imperialism II game.

I remember, a player started with the same map of Europe every time, but the New World was generated randomly. It was cool, you could never be sure what was waiting for you on the other side of ocean.

 

[AdmiralNelson]

There is no “human element”(unless you believe in souls or similar supernatural things).

Or the liberty to decide when I'm going to brush my teeth...

 

[AdmiralNelson]

That was in Imperialism II game.

I remember, a player started with the same map of Europe every time, but the New World was generated randomly. It was cool, you could never be sure what was waiting for you on the other side of ocean.

That's an interesting idea, but I don't see it happening in EUII.

Pretty much everybody wants accuracy in the world-map, not fantasy.

 

[Mork]

That's a certainly bad view about history.

There was no 6 planted out on the island to indicate what it would bring, and, written just below a : "plant sugar, it'll make you rich" panel...

Spain settled in the Carribean because:
* these were the first island they found accross the see and they had to build a place to stop and refill their ships
* these islands were closer to Spain than any other area know to them
* they were convinced of being close to india supposed "big riches", so they kept on pilling there...

Note that the place was so badly suited for colonization that it fast required slaves to be worked (climate too harsh for poor europeans).

Later they stuck to Central America just because it happened that some guy with a handfull of men did capture a whole empire there... and later, another fearless guy repeated the same trick south of there! Needless to say that this was enough to keep Spanish hands full for some time!

And all of this happened for only one reason : search for gold ; not search for new territories... As it turned out, they finally got both!

EU games are historically turning history upside down as players try to colonize to get new territories (and deny them to their opponents) knowing that this would reap great benefits in the future, while this was hardly the motive that drove the early colonization rush...

A good move in EU3 would be to hide the expected tax value of territories, hide the natives and in particular their level of aggressiveness and ferocity (you'd know about them only after your first attempt), and maybe even hide what the province can produce... I guess you'd be a lot more careful in colonizing!!!

Yves

You forgot the rather large number of Reconquista soldiers that sought their fortune now that the war in their homeland was over.
This was no small driving force, just like the religious refugees that later came to the new world. Hard to model I suppose.

 

[AdmiralNelson]

You forgot the rather large number of Reconquista soldiers that sought their fortune now that the war in their homeland was over.
This was no small driving force, just like the religious refugees that later came to the new world. Hard to model I suppose.

Except by providing a stability boost for colonization.

+1 for every colonist?

 

[yvesp]

It's not their fault you bought their game. Perhaps you should have waited before purchasing it and checked around on these forums to see the initial response.

Usually, I don't have time to stay here and read forums...
I am a little too much occupied with my work, comuting, caring for my family and of course playing, to have a lot of time to delve into the many forums dealing about games that could interest me... and when I get the time, I'll visit the forums for those games of which I supposedly know nothing.

Heck! I did not even know that EU3 was coming out until two weeks ago! And I'm a big fan of the EU series... This should give you an idea of the time I have available to go woolgathering on internet...

So, no, I know it's not Paradox fault that my time is limited. But sure they know that most customers won't know or take the time to visit here before buying.

As it happens, I am on holidays, so I have more free time just now...

And it doesn't change the fact that Paradox did intentionaly use a brand name in order to capitalize on it's popularity while the game mechanisms have substantially changed...

The level of change is not as great when you follow the Civilization brand name from I to IV for exemple : graphics differ, some features have been modified or added, but mostly you still play the same game. That's not true for the EU serie now.

Yves

 

[Mork]

That's an interesting idea, but I don't see it happening in EUII.

Pretty much everybody wants accuracy in the world-map, not fantasy.

I would say cotton in the southern part of north america is as must strict history as a certain king (and a bit wrong, as cotton where first in the Americas in the late 16th century)

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Teutonic Knights colonize Africa - totally ahistoric. Shouldnt happened as they werent sailors.

But they could gain control over Danzig, a major port in the Baltic sea. And then could found a Trade-company that started trading with Africa and then a bunch of Teutonic Knight moves to Africa to spread the word of God there, just like the Jezuits did in South-America. Jezuits weren't sailors either, but they had some big colonies in south-america

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)

Spain colonizing North America is historically possible.