I suspect that at the end of the day HOI3 will end up looking pretty reasonable as well, after a few patches and maybe an expansion.
Megathread : Events, Decisions & Missions in Victoria 2
- Thread starter Galleblære
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I suspect that at the end of the day HOI3 will end up looking pretty reasonable as well, after a few patches and maybe an expansion.
Take Holland, for an example. Any player at least reasonably competent can make it one of the wealthiest nations in the world in 20-30 years. Yet it's rarely in the top 20 income nations when played by an AI. This is because the AI is designed to not trade to its full effectiveness. If the AI actually picked National Trade Policy and traded to its full potential every time, then you'd see Holland in the #1 or #2 income spot every game (until Burgandy beats up on it or some other unfortunate event happens to it). This isn't a limitation of the AI's abilities, either. It would be piss-easy to script the AI to do as well as a player does in trading, they just don't because making an AI play just like a player plays is bad design.
For a more broad example, if the AI in EU3 truly played to win, we'd see 20 nations tops in the world by 1500. It would be incredibly boring to see the world devolve into nothing but super-powers every single game so early, so Paradox designed the game so this doesn't happen. It would also be almost impossible to play the game as a minor or even medium power if you had countries like France that were truly doing every single thing in their capacity to conquer the world. For something more game-mechanics for you, the AI is actually coded to never take any aggressive actions if their badboy gets too high, no matter how high their advantage could be against any potential badboy war opponents.
I once listened to an interview with Sid Meier (the real one
) about this subject, and it was pretty interesting. He talked about how the large majority of people who play grand strategy games or 4X games in single player mode don't want to have extremely intense competition from an AI that plays just like top-level players. They want a game with a structured challenge, and they want a world/universe that behaves relatively realistically. The players that want that kind of challenge all play multiplayer, where they can truly get opponents who are of equal skill level with them. I firmly believe this, and that it really applies to most types of games, including Paradox's. This is also why it's very important to have solid multiplayer included in your strategy games.
Actually from what I've seen, the AI can be a real opportunistic bastard when it comes to DOWing. OTOH it often settles for a white piece while occupying >50% of another AI nation.
And lucky nations will often get out of control if there isn't anyone to keep them in check. But even unchecked lucky nations wont do even a tenth as well as a player would do in their shoes (especially with all those juicy modifiers). There are still many limitations the AI has to work through. This isn't a strike against the AI in any way, but a compliment. It doesn't behave strictly historical, but for the most part the AI will behave like an actual nation of the time would. It's what makes EU3 a great game in my mind.
It's also a monstrous step forward to making the game playable and enjoyable, and even then it needs help from a mod (MM or somesuch) to really make it good. Maybe you and a few others enjoyed seeing a Venetian Kamchatka and Ming in Poland in 90% of your games, but for me at least the patches and expansions were all steady progress towards a better game.
Compare it to the all-generic Rome: unarguably a disaster of a game by Paradox standards. A few "railroading" decisions in an expansion really couldn't hurt it much.
---
I would also disagree somewhat on the historical options - they weren't superflous, necessarily, they were just poorly implemented, and yes, they were too much work in the long run. But if done right (say, by decision again) they could work great.
l3illyl3ob, while you do have a point with respect to the AI not focusing enough on trade boosting ideas as the Netherlands when compared with a human player, you seem to equate the AI "playing to win" or doing its best with the AI actually being capable of playing as well as a competent human player, when there's a vast gap between intentions and capabilities.
As for it being piss easy to improve the AI to trade or do anything at all as well as a merely competent human player, surely you are joking - MUCH more easily said than done.
When the AI doesn't perform better than it does in EU3, the reason is in almost all cases an inability to perform better, not a result of being intentionally held back.
As for it being piss easy to improve the AI to trade or do anything at all as well as a merely competent human player, surely you are joking - MUCH more easily said than done.
When the AI doesn't perform better than it does in EU3, the reason is in almost all cases an inability to perform better, not a result of being intentionally held back.
For some people yes, but certainly not for me. I do not need to run any mods to have fun in EU3 or to consider it a great game.RGB said:
Err, unarguably? Rome failed, for me, big time because of having a governor in every province and hence way too much micromanagement to be worth the effort and in not giving that Republic of Rome'sqe feel to factional politics in republics. Vae Victis cured that to a large degree by focusing on governors for regions and putting a considerable amount of work into government forms. Rome with Vae Victis is a really nice game to play. Based on how fun it is to play, I would certainly argue that it is not in any way a disaster with the VV expansion.
Last edited:
I don't understand this debate, to be honest. I remember EU2, for example, very fondly. It was an amazing game that immersed you into a country.
But it never made sense. As a game of Russia, I got the Time of Troubles, despite having an alliance with Poland and +3 stability. The event would virtually always fire, and it annoyed me because it set my country back despite it making absolutely no sense. France would virtually always nab the Spanish/Austrian Netherlands in EU2, despite EU2's various events that cause a war when they historically tried.
EU3, however, changes all of this. You won't randomly get events that set your nation back when it doesn't make sense - sure, you have the odd event that costs stability because of internal affairs, but these affairs are abstracted, so you can see where it's coming from. If France tries to conquer the Netherlands, Castille/Spain, Britain, etc. will generally get annoyed and declare war, and even if that's not always what occurs, Heir to the Throne seeks to replicate this. If you have low stability and high war exhaustion, an event meant to simulate the Time of Troubles will fire for a nation - the atmosphere is similar, so it's plausible that it will occur. It doesn't force things on nations where it doesn't make sense, simply out of a silly and abstract notion that it's what happened historically.
Victoria was a game that gave the player a country of their choosing and sent you into history. It did not railroad you nearly as much as EU2 did, but it had the odd historical event that seemed plausible, and it virtually always gave the player a choice.
Victoria 2 seeks to add a whole new element, decisions, in which you can make choices regarding your country on a whim - not out of a random, abstracted system that took time, and fired randomly so long as you looked up and met the requirements. It will not remove the system of random abstracted events, but instead seek to use it where it fits better than the decision system - it will prove the supporting force, not the driving force.
This is what I hope, anyway. EU3: IN and, it seems, Heir to the Throne have proven it is possible to create an atmosphere of historical plausibility without forcing the player to follow the historical roads. It creates the ultimate immersion and fun, and if not, it creates what's necessary to eventually reach this. I can only hope that Paradox knows this and will create a Vicky 2 that utilizes the Clausewitz engine to its full potential.
And that's what I think about Vietnam.
But it never made sense. As a game of Russia, I got the Time of Troubles, despite having an alliance with Poland and +3 stability. The event would virtually always fire, and it annoyed me because it set my country back despite it making absolutely no sense. France would virtually always nab the Spanish/Austrian Netherlands in EU2, despite EU2's various events that cause a war when they historically tried.
EU3, however, changes all of this. You won't randomly get events that set your nation back when it doesn't make sense - sure, you have the odd event that costs stability because of internal affairs, but these affairs are abstracted, so you can see where it's coming from. If France tries to conquer the Netherlands, Castille/Spain, Britain, etc. will generally get annoyed and declare war, and even if that's not always what occurs, Heir to the Throne seeks to replicate this. If you have low stability and high war exhaustion, an event meant to simulate the Time of Troubles will fire for a nation - the atmosphere is similar, so it's plausible that it will occur. It doesn't force things on nations where it doesn't make sense, simply out of a silly and abstract notion that it's what happened historically.
Victoria was a game that gave the player a country of their choosing and sent you into history. It did not railroad you nearly as much as EU2 did, but it had the odd historical event that seemed plausible, and it virtually always gave the player a choice.
Victoria 2 seeks to add a whole new element, decisions, in which you can make choices regarding your country on a whim - not out of a random, abstracted system that took time, and fired randomly so long as you looked up and met the requirements. It will not remove the system of random abstracted events, but instead seek to use it where it fits better than the decision system - it will prove the supporting force, not the driving force.
This is what I hope, anyway. EU3: IN and, it seems, Heir to the Throne have proven it is possible to create an atmosphere of historical plausibility without forcing the player to follow the historical roads. It creates the ultimate immersion and fun, and if not, it creates what's necessary to eventually reach this. I can only hope that Paradox knows this and will create a Vicky 2 that utilizes the Clausewitz engine to its full potential.
And that's what I think about Vietnam.
Definetily decisions over events. I'd rather have actual control over my country then praying for a random event to happen or having to look up why an event was being triggered.
That and I only care about playing a fun game, historical flavor is cool and all but if the game is enjoyable and I see finland invading Korea or whatever, who cares.
I worry that Paradox will sacrifice gameplay in order to meet the demands of a small but very vocal minority that frankly will never be happy no matter what Paradox does.
If the choice is between historical plausibility and gameplay, gameplay should win every time.
That and I only care about playing a fun game, historical flavor is cool and all but if the game is enjoyable and I see finland invading Korea or whatever, who cares.
I worry that Paradox will sacrifice gameplay in order to meet the demands of a small but very vocal minority that frankly will never be happy no matter what Paradox does.
If the choice is between historical plausibility and gameplay, gameplay should win every time.
Yeah, it would be sooo cool to see Finland invade Korea in Vic 2. Vocal minority speaking.
Most people, actually. That's why Paradox repeatedly improved the first Clausewitz game (EU3) to make it less Finnish-Korea-esque.
The vocal minority in this case is the one that insists that Finnish Korea is a-ok.
I'm very happy with what Paradox does because I realise the magnitude of the challenge. In making the game more like what people like me prefer, the gameplay has only improved.
In short, I don't think you really have much of a point.
That's the wrong approach to this problem, if it is a problem. There isn't really a choice between gameplay and plausibility. Gameplay and plausibility are instead inextricably linked BECAUSE it is a HISTORICAL-genre game.
Take PE's earlier conversation with me, for example. You'd think we disagree on a whole lot.
However, he appreciates the EU expansions as well - and they, if anything, made the game MORE plausible and more fun at the same time. He's only really unhappy with hardcoded bonus flags and the ability to make decisions. He has previously - too many times to count - been in the vocal minority that wanted a perfectly unbiased, contextual-but-generic approach to the game - the gameplay engine being enough for all your historical needs.
I think what's really unspoken here is that decisions and country-tag-triggers are well, band-aids until the engine is perfected to reproduce plausibility all by itself while keeping the game streamlined and fun.
Unfortunately I'm not convinced this current engine can do that. The band-aid solution is currently good enough for me. It makes the game work. The AI competitor is at least a little bit of a challenge, the historical plausibility is in better shape than in EU3 Vanilla, and it keeps the player in the driver's seat of a car he wanted to drive rather than being dragged by a game-engine bus somewhere he doesn't want to go, which a strict gameplay-over-history approach implies.
When I first started playing Victoria, I was a bit miffed that there weren't any hardcoded events leading up to WW1. Nowadays, my thoughts are different.
Consider this: most of the 'big' events (ACW, Crimea, etc.) occur during the first half of the game. Afterward -- and this is particularly true in vanilla Vicky/Ricky -- things aren't as detailed.
This makes sense. The player typically spends the first half of the game setting up his/her country to be a global competitor in the second half of the game. This means different things for different countries: Prussia seeks to unify Germany, USA to win the ACW, Ottomans to survive Crimea, Japan to join the civilized world. The activities of the second half are more universal and free-form, where the player spends time grabbing up land in Africa, widespread industrialization, building up a world-class navy that may not be actually used, and so on.
Through the course of these events, the global political situation very rarely looks the same as it did in 1914, particularly in Europe. The player would be hard-pressed to have it be as such, in seeking to reach #1 during the Grand Campaign: I typically help the CSA survive; I typically prevent German Unification; and I ideally use my shining, world-class navy to make every GP a satellite. So, locking the player into a war such as happened in WW1 seems to be pretty pointless (unless, of course, you play a 1914 scenario).
Consider this: most of the 'big' events (ACW, Crimea, etc.) occur during the first half of the game. Afterward -- and this is particularly true in vanilla Vicky/Ricky -- things aren't as detailed.
This makes sense. The player typically spends the first half of the game setting up his/her country to be a global competitor in the second half of the game. This means different things for different countries: Prussia seeks to unify Germany, USA to win the ACW, Ottomans to survive Crimea, Japan to join the civilized world. The activities of the second half are more universal and free-form, where the player spends time grabbing up land in Africa, widespread industrialization, building up a world-class navy that may not be actually used, and so on.
Through the course of these events, the global political situation very rarely looks the same as it did in 1914, particularly in Europe. The player would be hard-pressed to have it be as such, in seeking to reach #1 during the Grand Campaign: I typically help the CSA survive; I typically prevent German Unification; and I ideally use my shining, world-class navy to make every GP a satellite. So, locking the player into a war such as happened in WW1 seems to be pretty pointless (unless, of course, you play a 1914 scenario).
For those like me, historical plausibility is "game play" and "coolness". Whatever that actually means. And accusing the other side of being a "vocal minority" really isn't an argument.
As mentioned on the first page (IIRC) both have their uses. Decisions are good for the historical accuracy that making such a decision wasn't a spur of the moment thing (like an event would force that decision upon you instantly), but took some time. As for events, well they are good for the stuff which is out of your control; stuff that really is just spur of the moment.
Also, for *most* people historical plausibility is part of gameplay. No-one could comprehend why Finland would be going to war with Korea, and it would ruin it if the AI turned out like that.
As many as is necessary. All the major conflicts should be in. Has anyone mentioned the Chincha Islands War, the War of the Pacific, or the War of the Triple Alliance? Just thought I'd throw in some South American wars!
There should be zero events starting wars, ZERO. Events should only be for things completely out of a nations control. Events for the liberal revolution fine, event for the Sino - Japanese war not fine. Any historical wars that are modelled in the game should be done through a decision for instigators and events for everyone else. e.g. The Crimean war Russia gets a decision which lets them start it which triggers events for the Ottomans (damn the Russians are attacking) and the major European powers (Intervene or not).
why? Seriously what is the difference between Russia having a decision to launch a war against the Ottomans if condition are right and an event where Russia gets a choice to launch a war against the Ottomans if conditions are right.
The only practical difference would be timing, but even then the event could be backdated to start checking triggers as early as 1836 if so desired, and we know most events for big geopolitical events have deathdates well beyond the historical end of the conflict to deal with waiting for trigger conditions to match if they don't match at a historical date.
So what, really, is the difference?
I completely agree with you. If great wars of the period must be modelized, this should be by decisions, not rigid events who mean nothing if the historical condition are not here. Maybe historical wars should be explicate when we choose these decisions, but this whould not be a yes or no decision who appear one time only. I mean, if Russia is not ready for crimean war, why should the game force it to do that?