Megathread : Events, Decisions & Missions in Victoria 2

[Peter Ebbesen]

I would like to see some randomness in V2. Not outrageously, but I would like the AI to ocasionally do some ahistorical (yet perfectly viable, historically possible) decisions.

I would prefer the AI to play to win every single time rather than be either crippled or boosted in an attempt to force "historical" behaviour by reenacting our history rather than playing to the best of its ability in the developing alternative history of the game.

So many different views on what makes a good historical game.

 

[aenariel]

I would prefer the AI to play to win every single time rather than be either crippled or boosting in an attempt to force "historical" behaviour by reenacting our history rather than playing to the best of its ability in the developing alternative history of the game.

So many different views on what makes a good historical game.

To me the AI should behave the best it can. The historical setting must be brought by the limitations of the country itself, not by changing the way the AI behaves in particular situations. If a country does too good if often says that the settings are unbalanced, if all AIs are doing the best they can; then it's just a matter of changing the settings.
Obviously history is made of mistakes, and sometimes, if the AI is too good, it won't make the same mistakes as some countries historically did. But I still don't think forcing the AI to go wrong to force history to unveil the way it did is a good way to do things.

 

[Arilou]

I would prefer the AI to play to win every single time rather than be either crippled or boosted in an attempt to force "historical" behaviour by reenacting our history rather than playing to the best of its ability in the developing alternative history of the game.

So many different views on what makes a good historical game.

I don't neccessarily disagree, but the problem is that I am doubting (and after the last three or four games, my doubts have grown stronger) the ability of Paradox to simulate the decision-making process in a correct way.

Eg. historically people usually did things for a reason. The AI should do this, not because it's a stupid AI but because these reasons are modeled correctly, unfotunately I don't think Paradox or AI is capable of doing that.

 

[unmerged(12990)]

I would prefer the AI to play to win every single time rather than be either crippled or boosted in an attempt to force "historical" behaviour by reenacting our history rather than playing to the best of its ability in the developing alternative history of the game.

So many different views on what makes a good historical game.

One could argue that this approach was done with vanilla EU3 (don't know how different it is in IN) and that felt way, way too generic and sandboxy. If Vicky 2 goes in that direction I would be really disappointed as hell, and probably wouldn't be the only one.

While I'm perfectly happy with a deterministic game, I don't mind one which is plausibly ahistoric. Having huge unrealistic blobs spreading over the planet in a few decades is not plausibly ahistoric. Certain limitations need to be made.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

One could argue that this approach was done with vanilla EU3 (don't know how different it is in IN) and that felt way, way too generic and sanboxy.

I would argue that EU3 vanilla took exactly that approach and ended up a great game and probably* the greatest commercial success outside the HoI series, though I am aware of many on the forum who disagree with that assessment, and not just those who managed to somehow convince themselves that EU3 should have been like EU2 in gameplay despite all evidence to the contrary in the developer diaries.

* as I don't have the numbers I'm merely guessing here

If Vicky 2 goes in that direction I would be really disappointed as hell, and probably wouldn't be the only one.

I am absolutely certain that you are right. No matter HOW it ends up, somebody on the "this is how I interpret historical game" spectrum will end up dissatisfied. As such, the mere fact that somebody will be dissatisfied and disappointed is not very relevant to design decisions.

Then again, I'm probably about as far into the "add pink flying elephants to the game, if it makes it more interesting and challenging as a game" membership as it is possible to be while not going bonkers, so take it with a grain of salt: I couldn't care less about reenacting history as we know it - I'm only interested in creating a new history.

 

[unmerged(12990)]

I would argue that EU3 vanilla took exactly that approach and ended up a great game and probably* the greatest commercial success outside the HoI series, though I am aware of many on the forum who disagree with that assessment, and not just those who managed to somehow convince themselves that EU3 should have been like EU2 in gameplay despite all evidence to the contrary in the developer diaries.

* as I don't have the numbers I'm merely guessing here

I am absolutely certain that you are right. No matter HOW it ends up, somebody on the "this is how I interpret historical game" spectrum will end up dissatisfied. As such, the mere fact that somebody will be dissatisfied and disappointed is not very relevant to design decisions.

Then again, I'm probably about as far into the "add pink flying elephants to the game, if it makes it more interesting and challenging as a game" membership as it is possible to be while not going bonkers, so take it with a grain of salt: I couldn't care less about reenacting history as we know it - I'm only interested in creating a new history.

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't each new EU3 XP basically kill a little bit of the vanilla generic feeling? The historical decisions, for one, then there is the possibility of historic monarchs, etc. I would say that Paradox realized that going totally generic isn't that popular, and acted accordingly. I think that's why in subsequent games they started adding country-specific AI files again.

But in any case, it's pretty obvious we don't agree on the principle game philosphy, so we'll see who's happier in Q2 2010.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't each new EU3 XP basically kill a little bit of the vanilla generic feeling?

No, not really. A lot of "historical options" were added for EU3 NA that those who wanted historical this or historical that had asked or whined for on the forum in response to EU3, but given how few (in the forum) appear to actually take advantage of those options, that was probably probably a mistake that won't be repeated and Paradox would have been better off spending the work they did on that in NA on something that actually improved the base game. Hindsight - there's nothing like it.

The historical decisions, for one, then there is the possibility of historic monarchs, etc. I would say that Paradox realized that going totally generic isn't that popular, and acted accordingly. I think that's why in subsequent games they started adding country-specific AI files again.

The "historical decisions" in EU3 IN are about 50% generic ones based on what rather than who, and thus following the spirit of EU3 perfectly. Of the other half, the vast majority are events (that were there from EU3 vanilla) turned into decisions (e.g. all the nation forming events), i.e. using the new decision tool to allow the player a better playing experience by turning the timing of important decisions over to the player. There are nation specific decisions that grant bonuses, but they are few and far between and are mostly cosmetic. It is hard to see how the decision system, as implemeted, made the game less "generic" overall.

Now, what truly is a big step backwards from having nations make their own destiny in EU3 is the attempt to railroad them into taking certain actions by the addition by IN of missions, many of them country specific and many of them giving huge gifts for free. This is a monstrous step backwards to EU2 "special favoured nation" status (where it was done via nation specific events) as well as being helpful for those players (and there are many), who have always lacked a sense of direction in Paradox games.... but the mission system is entirely optional, so grouches like me can just turn it off when I feel like it.

Given that the subsequent games are EU:Rome, where country specific AI files were not added, and HoI3, which, focused on a very short period of time and one particular war, had better not be designed to play exactly like the games covering several generations, I'd be wary about drawing conclusions from how AI is handled in HoI3 to how it will be handled in anything that covers an extended period of time.

 

[Flooper X]

I don't neccessarily disagree, but the problem is that I am doubting (and after the last three or four games, my doubts have grown stronger) the ability of Paradox to simulate the decision-making process in a correct way.

Eg. historically people usually did things for a reason. The AI should do this, not because it's a stupid AI but because these reasons are modeled correctly, unfotunately I don't think Paradox or AI is capable of doing that.

I would say they at least partially accomplished this in In Nomine.
And since In Nomine seems to be the goal in Vicky2, I'm confident they will do good this time as well. It may not be 100% perfect but good enough for it not to be a crazy sandbox. And I'm sure VIP2 will aid those with more deterministic preferences

 

[unmerged(51257)]

Historical Events that must be in Vic 2

Hi Guys,

I have been part of the cult that has been playing Victoria non-stop since 2003. Also love EU3 and the HOI series (just starting to get into HOI3!).

I am, like so many of you, a huge history buff. In fact I am preparing to do my PHD soon and its emphasis will be on 19th century great power history.


Anyway, I wanted to start this very important thread today and hopefully it will take off and the guys at Paradox will pay attention.


Please share your ideas for historical events that either were not in Vic 1 or were not done right that you want to see in Vic 2.


I will start by nominating three crucial historical events:


1) I am a Japanophile and I was simply crushed when I learned the Russo-Japanese War was not an event in Vic 1. This MUST be incorperated into the new game. Also include First Sino-Japanese War 1894-1895.


2) Create a long lasting historical event for the epic "Great Game" waged between Russia and Britain from roughly 1837 to 1907. This event she affect those two powers foreign policies greatly and have global ramifications for the entire game. I assume this new "spheres of influence" system wil address the "Great Game." The players should be able to make this Great Game last its full 60 years if they so choose. Key years for events/decisions to be made by British and Russians are: 1838, 1841-1842, huge cold war 1840s-1870s, then big decisions 1878-1881, another cold war until 1907 when decision available to end Great Game if say Germany is formed and is in alliance with Austria and relations betwen Britain and Russia are over 100, finally 1919 when afghan revolt can occur if country is in British sphere of influence.

For Vic 2 to be a great game it must make the "Great Game" the long lasting touch stone event. This struggle between Britain and Russia more than any other conflict at that time, epitomised the struggle for great power supremacy in a region.


3) Create the First Global Jihad- I was ecstatic when I first got playing Vic one to learn that General Gordon was in the game and he was a formidable military commander. He even leaves the game in 1885 in keeping with his famous death at the hands of the Mahdi's minions in Khartoum. However there was no specific "Defeat the Mahdi event" in Vic 1, there neeeds to be one in Vic 2. Just create a fairly sizeable rebellion in the Sudan that can threaten Egypt. All the event woudl need to fire would be Britain in control of Egypt in the early 1880s.


I could go on and on but I know you guys will have lots to add. But these three events MUST (not should) be in Vic 2 for the game to be historically credible and entertaining.


What other HE do you guys recommend?

 

[Taylor]

If I'm not mistaken, historical events will not be in the game. Only decisions and probably random events or something.

 

[Ciaphas Cain]

If I'm not mistaken, historical events will not be in the game. Only decisions and probably random events or something.

"Thousands of historical events and decisions."

 

[Orinsul]

if there were not any historical events then everyone man jack of us on this forum would hunt down the paradox men and kick them and they know this so there will be historical events and lots of them too.

 

[RELee]

"Thousands of historical events and decisions."

That's what he said. He said that. I heard him. I heard him say that. Yep, he definitely said that.

 

[unmerged(51257)]

Concurring with Ciaphas Cain, its my understanding that there will be lots of historical events and decisions in the game. I even think Paradox may place some increased emphasis on this important facet of the game.

 

[ZmajOgnjeniVuk]

Scripted wars sound too deterministic to be in - f.e. AFAIK, even the start of WWII isn't scripted in HOI3. So, Paradox won't revert from the contextual/dynamic approach to a more deterministic one.

OTOH, the 1848 revolution will hopefully be better managed than the French revolution in EU3 where it adds practically nothing to the game.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[byzantium43]

All of the opium wars, both boer wars, Crimean war, US civil war, any major war.

Scripted wars sound too deterministic to be in - f.e. AFAIK, even the start of WWII isn't scripted in HOI3 AFAIK. So Paradox won't revert from the contextual/dynamic approach to a more deterministic one.

OTOH, the 1848 revolution will hopefully be better managed than the French revolution in EU3 where it adds practically nothing to the game.

You should be able to decide whether or not to fight the war, just like in vicky 1. One option you back out and lose prestige or what not, other way you enter war. AI decisions will also effect whether or not war is even an option.

 

[ajm317]

Most of the historical events in Vicky were in the region of 1836-1870. Much past that they didn't really have any. The Russo-Japanese war was not an event, neither was WWI.

Although not being a programmer on the project I can't know for sure, I suspect this is probably because you just can't predict with any reasonable accuracy what the map is going to look like that far into the game. The Russo-Japanese war looks a bit silly if Japan hasn't even civilized, and WWI seems a bit out of place if France owns half of Germany.

Besides, although I want some historical events in Vicky 2, I definitely don't want the game to be "on rails". A few events early in the game to point us in the right direction might be nice, but I don't want every game as France in the early 20th century to be waiting for the big war that I know will always start in 1914. The events should be flexible, and they shouldn't necessarily always happen.

You should be able to decide whether or not to fight the war, just like in vicky 1. One option you back out and lose prestige or what not, other way you enter war. AI decisions will also effect whether or not war is even an option.

The problem with this solution is that there is almost always a "right" choice from a gameplay perspective. Playing as the U.S., for example, you want to fight the civil war, and if you don't you're just hurting yourself. Ultimately this still leaves you "on rails" so to speak.

 

[unmerged(51257)]

byzantium43 has already stated what I want to say on this subject of supposed historical determinism. I thought everyone understood when I was talking about events that need to be in the game I was stating that in the Vicky context i.e. if the conditions are in place (set by paradox) then an event fires giving the player the choice to either play the historical event or not to.


So yes in the case of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 all I hope for is that if in 1904 Russia and Japan have poor relations, Japan is civilized, and Korea is indepedent that the event will fire giving the player the CHOICE.


Let's not get bogged down in a discussion of historical determinism vs ahistorical flexiblity and instead focus on events that should be in the game, again, IN THE VICKY CONTEXT: IF THE CONDITIONS ARE IN PLACE AN EVENT WILL FIRE GIVING THE PLAYER THE CHOICE.

 

[ajm317]

IN THE VICKY CONTEXT: IF THE CONDITIONS ARE IN PLACE AN EVENT WILL FIRE GIVING THE PLAYER THE CHOICE.

As I said though, I don't think giving the player a choice really resolves the issue, because there is always a right choice and a wrong choice from a gameplay perspective.

At the very least I would like for many of the events to have a random chance to fire, as opposed to always firing if the conditions are met.

 

[unmerged(51257)]

ajm317 I undertand your perspective and think a way of satisfying us both would be to include an option to have a more historical game or a more ahistorical game like in EUIII.


Ultimate solutions are usually found through compromise and I think such an option could work for the both of us.