Minor Countries Almost Impossible to Play

[unmerged(26764)]

IMO, the stronger arguments have been made to not make such changes.

Funny that. I feel just the reverse...

Anyway, it seems your side has two points:

A) Hysterical Voice: If you don't put all sorts of silly handicaps on the uncivilized nations, China will be a great power again!

Wrong. If you dont put all sort of silly handicaps on CHINA then China will be a great power again.

Sadly, the game design doesn't handle China well. It is huge with huge territory and huge population. The game scores RGOs well on the arbitrary "point" scale. Frankly, if we don't want China to be a great power, the game design should be so that China's historical situation leaves it weak. Instead, we just kneecaped the uncivs -- clumsy and inelegant in the least.

But wait.... what about.... events. Right, we have this great historical event system to deal with strange historical anomolies. So, maybe drain China's treasury with a series of events. Instead of, oh, randomly penalizing Oman and Siam that have nothing to do with China.

B) If you don't like it, mod the game.

This is a lame argument. It is sad. Sad. Sad. Sad. Not intelligent. Rude. Not nice. Brutish. All that.

Basically, this argument is: "I don't care what you think, fix it your way on your machine and leave me alone." Might I suggest, why don't we make the change, and you can mod it back the way you like it! This is the flip side of the same coin. See, no one wins this argument, because there is nothing morally superior about being the current default. It doesn't make you more right. Therefore, this argument is -- dumb.

But, if your side thinks this is a good argument, why don't we adopt it. We get the changes we want. You mod it back. Everyone wins, no?

 

[Dinsdale]

Funny that. I feel just the reverse...

Naturally.

A) Hysterical Voice: If you don't put all sorts of silly handicaps on the uncivilized nations, China will be a great power again!

Wrong. If you dont put all sort of silly handicaps on CHINA then China will be a great power again.

Hysterical??? I'm not sure who in this thread you're referring to, but I wonder what good it does to start out with an abrasive tone.

Anyway, China is only one of the problems. The other is having the player have an artificially easy time with minor powers.

Instead, we just kneecaped the uncivs -- clumsy and inelegant in the least.

Without this "kneecapping" how exactly would one seperate Sokoto from Switzeland at game start? If we take this one step further, why not just make every nation equal and not worry about the era.

But wait.... what about.... events. Right, we have this great historical event system to deal with strange historical anomolies. So, maybe drain China's treasury with a series of events. Instead of, oh, randomly penalizing Oman and Siam that have nothing to do with China.

That might be a solution, though it's no less clumsy than penalizing the uncivilized. Having arbitrary events draining off cash will lead to similar posts as in this thread.

B) If you don't like it, mod the game.

This is a lame argument. It is sad. Sad. Sad. Sad. Not intelligent. Rude. Not nice. Brutish. All that.

Why?
Why is arguing that historically backwater powers remain difficult to play and lead to them remaining as backwaters be brutish.

If this truly is "brutish" then isn't the clamour to change just whining?

Basically, this argument is: "I don't care what you think, fix it your way on your machine and leave me alone." Might I suggest, why don't we make the change, and you can mod it back the way you like it! This is the flip side of the same coin. See, no one wins this argument, because there is nothing morally superior about being the current default. It doesn't make you more right. Therefore, this argument is -- dumb.

How about if I demand that Chile be given all the techs and an industrial base to start the game. I might make great pleas that it's no fun to play Chile without this enhancement, and that everyone else should be forced to have it as well. Would I be as self-righteously indignant as you if people told me no?

 

[Waffen9999]

Erick,

What exactly will you achieve by expanding RGOs? Is this going to make the game mouth-wateringly interesting for minors? Is pressing the "expand" buttong going to introduce sufficient conflict and tension as to make it an entirely new experience to try Assam?

It'll allow the minors to make a bit more money and to employ their population so it doesn't emigrate. As China, in the first 2 years of the GC your 410,000,000 population drops to around 388,000,000

 

[swilhelm73]

How about if I demand that Chile be given all the techs and an industrial base to start the game. I might make great pleas that it's no fun to play Chile without this enhancement, and that everyone else should be forced to have it as well. Would I be as self-righteously indignant as you if people told me no?

Damn Dinsdale do you nail it!

If they had a post of the week/month whatever in the VIC forum as opposed to just Off Topic I'd go nominate this one!

 

[unmerged(29181)]

If you have having trouble playing as a minor- edit the save file to make them on-par with the bigger countries.

I love editing the save file.

 

[unmerged(30105)]

Allowing them to DOW other than colonial and expand RGOs would make minors more fun to play. Ok so I want to play Siam, Tibet, Nepal, some nations in India and Africa. RGOs will allow me to at least dream of becoming a civlized nation.

I understand China there must be some way for them to deal with it other than hurt other nation's playablity. Maybe there is a way to stop China from producing RGOs and allow other nations to. There might be another way to hurt them, like increase revolt risk of China higher. (During this time China had many rebellions and was hurt my warlords trying to take power.)

Everyone should be able to voice their opinion. If Pardox doesnt want to change it perhaps someone else can make a MOD for it.

 

[Waffen9999]

Well, when I civilized my China, first thing I did was improve all the RGO's to level 2, this increased exports by roughly double. Before becomnig civilized I was exporting around 100 or profit, with level 2 RGO's it was around 200 or so. Level 2 RGO's aren't going to change the game much for a minor. It'll help alot but it's not going to unbalance them, except for China most likely since for some reason the computer can find a way to field 800 irregular divisions at full strength.

 

[Dark Knight]

I suggest that there be less hysteria and aggressiveness in any futher posts, if people want this thread not to be closed.

 

[unmerged(26764)]

Hysterical??? I'm not sure who in this thread you're referring to, but I wonder what good it does to start out with an abrasive tone.

Fair enough. I was trying to be slightly amusing, but I see how it came off as abrasive.

But as for the Chile super-tech argument, it doesn't address my point. There are plenty of good arguments for while this would ruin the game. I would make most of them. But those arguments don't include: "if you want Chile to have all the techs, go mod the game."

Of course, there is nothing brutish about your disagreeing with the argument. What I object to is dismissing the argument by telling the proponent to just go mod the game. Address the point on the merits. Why does lessening the crushing unciv burden ruin the game? The only argument I've seen is the China boogeyman. I think this can be addressed in other ways. Maybe you just object to people playing minors?

So, what else?

 

[swilhelm73]

Of course, there is nothing brutish about your disagreeing with the argument. What I object to is dismissing the argument by telling the proponent to just go mod the game. Address the point on the merits. Why does lessening the crushing unciv burden ruin the game? The only argument I've seen is the China boogeyman. I think this can be addressed in other ways. Maybe you just object to people playing minors?

The point has been made a half dozen times already. Making uncivilized minors stronger makes them ahistorically strong. Uncivilized is SUPPOSED to be a crippling burden.

And again has been pointed out repeatedly - how many uncivilized countries existed, IRL, in 1920?

 

[Waffen9999]

The point has been made a half dozen times already. Making uncivilized minors stronger makes them ahistorically strong. Uncivilized is SUPPOSED to be a crippling burden.

And again has been pointed out repeatedly - how many uncivilized countries existed, IRL, in 1920?

Depends who you asked. I'm sure any ethnic group from a country would consider themselves "civilized."

 

[swilhelm73]

Depends who you asked. I'm sure any ethnic group from a country would consider themselves "civilized."

Oh please.

The word means something specific in the game - don't try to change the issue by focusing on what the word means out of the game.

 

[unmerged(26764)]

The point has been made a half dozen times already. Making uncivilized minors stronger makes them ahistorically strong. Uncivilized is SUPPOSED to be a crippling burden.

And again has been pointed out repeatedly - how many uncivilized countries existed, IRL, in 1920?

Ok, that's what I thought. It seems that you philsophically think that the game should be 100% "historical." If something didn't happen, it shouldn't happen.

I disagree. I think anything was possible. Just because something played out one way, it might have played out another. I'd rather the game approximate the historical situation, and then let the player get out of it if he can. If Siam had a great series of kings, had gone democratic, and modernised, it could have been Japan.

I also thing games should be fun. If a country is playable, the player should have fun playing it. Not conqueror the world with it without any effort. Just have enough to do to have an interesting game. Like, say, get civilized by around 1880-1890, and catch up as much as they can.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Waffen9999]

Oh please.

The word means something specific in the game - don't try to change the issue by focusing on what the word means out of the game.

Hey you opened it man. But yes in regards to your question. Going by the European's egocentric view, the only civilized countries would be Europe, former European colonies for the most part which obviously is the U.S. and South America >parts of Africa< and Japan. China probably still woudln't be considered civilized by the time of World War 1 along with the rest of the few countries that were independant.

 

[Dinsdale]

Ok, that's what I thought. It seems that you philsophically think that the game should be 100% "historical." If something didn't happen, it shouldn't happen.

Isn't that one of the facets of the game. This is not C&C or Total War, it's a game where somewhat historic starting points and general rules to aid/impede nations growth lead to a game within those parameters.

I disagree. I think anything was possible.

Destiny or predestination, we should start a new thread :rofl: Seriously though, if you really think anything was possible then why did history follow a pattern where European powers dominated almost the entire globe? Was it just a series of accidents which prevented from a Bhutanese Edison or a Vietnamese Maxim? Was it cruel fate which meant Africa was colonized by Europe rather than the other way around?

I also thing games should be fun. If a country is playable, the player should have fun playing it. Not conqueror the world with it without any effort. Just have enough to do to have an interesting game. Like, say, get civilized by around 1880-1890, and catch up as much as they can.

Fun's quite subjective though. I don't find many of the minors in this game fun as there can be almost nothing to do for vast periods. My remedy is to play nations where it is more interesting. Again, what is the point of calling a nation Bhutan, Belgium or Britain if they are all cookie cutter nations and play the same?

----------

Fair enough. I was trying to be slightly amusing, but I see how it came off as abrasive.

NP, sometimes it's the nature of text that these things happen.

But as for the Chile super-tech argument, it doesn't address my point. There are plenty of good arguments for while this would ruin the game. I would make most of them. But those arguments don't include: "if you want Chile to have all the techs, go mod the game."

Fair enough, but after me reusing the same arguements: interest, playability, fun, anything could have happened, wouldn't there come a point where either I mod my game or realize that it may not be right to demand the change?

What I object to is dismissing the argument by telling the proponent to just go mod the game. Address the point on the merits. Why does lessening the crushing unciv burden ruin the game? The only argument I've seen is the China boogeyman. I think this can be addressed in other ways. Maybe you just object to people playing minors?

Modding the game is by far the fastest and easiest solution. Suppose unciv-unleashing was going to be put in the next patch, or two patches time, why wait when a simple fix can be made immediately?

I think you're mistaking "go mod the game" for "sod off and shut up," but I don't think it's being said with that in mind.

There are a secondary and tertiary arguments aside from China, which appears to be repeatedly ignored, and that's 1) why make the game simpler for nations which should be difficult? and 2) Why generic-alize (not a word I know ) all the nations.
So, what else?

Simply put, why have a Bhutan if it plays just like Argentina?

 

[swilhelm73]

Ok, that's what I thought. It seems that you philsophically think that the game should be 100% "historical." If something didn't happen, it shouldn't happen.

Actually I don't and have never hinted that it should.

However, I want the game to be historically based. I want most games to end with almost all of the uncivilized countries annexed.

I want a dominant China to be rare, but China to have the potential to become a serious regional power with some luck.

I want Japan to normally come into its own in the second half of the game.

The current system does all that. Why on earth change it in a way that at best will break all that???

Now I do feel their should have been some sort of fantasia mode too. And I'm sure I'll play all sorts of mods before I'm done with VIC. But the game is intended to be historically based and therefore the game has been made purposely easy to mod for those that want a game much less historically based then Paradox wants.

I really don't understand why the ability to change the game on your own isn't enough for those who want uncivilized nations to be stronger for their own VIC play.

I also thing games should be fun. If a country is playable, the player should have fun playing it. Not conqueror the world with it without any effort. Just have enough to do to have an interesting game. Like, say, get civilized by around 1880-1890, and catch up as much as they can.

What's wrong with that?

As I pointed out earlier - the hordes of 1 province nations in Europe are "boring" (not my word) in much the same way. The argument that every country that is playable should be "fun" to play demands that the likes of Krakow and Oldenberg be ahistorically strengthened too.

 

[swilhelm73]

Hey you opened it man. But yes in regards to your question. Going by the European's egocentric view, the only civilized countries would be Europe, former European colonies for the most part which obviously is the U.S. and South America >parts of Africa< and Japan. China probably still woudln't be considered civilized by the time of World War 1 along with the rest of the few countries that were independant.

No I didn't open any such issue. I could care less about what anyone thinks of the term outside of the game when it is <b>CLEARLY</b> being used as a game related term.

By VIC terms, IIRC only Ethopia and Afghanistan remained unannexed uncivilized nations. China, Persia, and Japan become civilized during the game period - and have events to make that happen if they don't meet the more general requirements.

As such, in your average VIC game about 2 of all those uncivilized nations in should remain independent. As such they need to stay weak - as a matter of fact, the status quo seems to model that pretty well. Which is why there is no historically based reason to change it.

 

[Darkrenown]

I think you're mistaking "go mod the game" for "sod off and shut up," but I don't think it's being said with that in mind.

Indeed. "Mod the game" should be read as "Here's a quick and easy way of solvng your problem" not "shut up and go away". All that needs to be done to make a country civilized is to open your save with notepad and remove the line "primitive = yes".

 

[Quarto]

By VIC terms, IIRC only Ethopia and Afghanistan remained unannexed uncivilized nations. China, Persia, and Japan become civilized during the game period - and have events to make that happen if they don't meet the more general requirements.

See, and this is the problem - the requirements for uncivilised nations to become civilised are so steep that even these three countries, unless they get their scripted events, cannot civilise. The generic civilising events are next to useless, because uncivilised nations are so restricted that even the most powerful nations of this kind simply do not ever meet the requirements.

Now, here's the thing - you guys don't seem to make the distinction between AI and human players. Remember, in EU2, China was so powerful that it was _the_ number one great power almost by default... but only if it was controlled by a human player. An AI player behaved in a more historically-accurate manner, resulting in a much weaker China. This was a great compromise, and it would be an especially appropriate compromise for the uncivilised nations in Vic. After all, China could have become a world power in this period - it didn't, but it could have. A human player should be able to enact this what-if scenario. This is not to say that China should start off as a great power - just that the possibility of developing it into such a power should not be artificially hacked off. Same goes for Siam, and other such nations. I don't think you need to worry about them becoming overpowered - anyone that's played with a civilised minor in South America knows that even once you're civilised, it still takes vast amounts of effort to rival even Denmark or Bavaria, let alone France or Sweden.

In short, the best compromise would be to impose the uncivilised nation restrictions at the AI level, not at the gameplay level. I do not think anybody here really want to see the AI-controlled uncivilised nations grow excessively powerful. All we want is the possibility of doing something if we play with an uncivilised nation. Because the main problem of uncivilised nations is not their lack of power - its the sheer, mind-numbing boredom of playing with one. It's just no fun when just about every option is unavailable because you're uncivilised.

 

[Darkrenown]

But again, why not just mod your own game? It'll take you two minutes and everyone'll be happy. As I said in the post above "All that needs to be done to make a country civilized is to open your save with notepad and remove the line "primitive = yes"."