Monarch System

[unmerged(62477)]

It is practically impossible to have the same historical family as it was in history. Why?

Each ejaculation releases roughly 300 million sperm. That means that there is a 1/300million and one chance of the same sperm getting to the egg. The one is because no sperm might reach it. Then, there is the fact that miscarriages are very frequent. Roughly 80% of all fertilised eggs are miscarriages. So, that gives us... 1/2400million and 8 chance of the same egg being fertilised by the same sperm and making it. That's modern day, of course. Take into account the poor healthcare system then, the figure is reduced by a few more times. Now, look at the beginning again. THis is the chance of ONE person's coming out EXACTLY the same. Then, cut this number EVEN MORE when you try to make the WHOLE line of families in the WHOLE world identical to history. Seeing that the game lasts hundreds of years, the chance of the exact same monarchs having the exact same development over the exact same countries in the exact same time for the whole game is practically zero.

Then, there are the deaths, time of deaths, manner of deaths and succession things to worry about. Oh, and political happenings can affect monarchs. Are you shocked?

 

[Registered]

Each ejaculation releases roughly 300 million sperm. That means that there is a 1/300million and one chance of the same sperm getting to the egg. The one is because no sperm might reach it. Then, there is the fact that miscarriages are very frequent. Roughly 80% of all fertilised eggs are miscarriages. So, that gives us... 1/2400million and 8 chance of the same egg being fertilised by the same sperm and making it. That's modern day, of course. Take into account the poor healthcare system then, the figure is reduced by a few more times. Now, look at the beginning again. THis is the chance of ONE person's coming out EXACTLY the same. Then, cut this number EVEN MORE when you try to make the WHOLE line of families in the WHOLE world identical to history. Seeing that the game lasts hundreds of years, the chance of the exact same monarchs having the exact same development over the exact same countries in the exact same time for the whole game is practically zero.

Utterly irrelevant. It's a game, not a simulation of the reproductive system.

 

[unmerged(62477)]

So a good argument against a rigid (and, dare I say, stupid) implementation of the historical monarch trees is irrelevant?

Congratulations on losing the argument with one post.

You know, if you want everything to be historical, you might as well lose all control. Hand it to the AI, who will simulate everything 100% perfectly 100% of the time. Would that please you?

 

[unmerged(60670)]

So a good argument against a rigid (and, dare I say, stupid) implementation of the historical monarch trees is irrelevant?

Congratulations on losing the argument with one post.

You know, if you want everything to be historical, you might as well lose all control. Hand it to the AI, who will simulate everything 100% perfectly 100% of the time. Would that please you?

Sometimes it does.
By the way, about the chances: what are chances to have any historical advisor to be born? same calculations as for monarchs apply. However, I don't think that exact combination of sperm and egg defines a person. An environment is much more important and it's the same in the case you started a day before. Another thing is that the probability of having exactly the same environment during at least first ten years is so close to 0, that for computer it's equal to 0.

 

[unmerged(4444)]

It is practically impossible to have the same historical family as it was in history...

What you mean to say is that, in the real world, it would be practically impossible for any historical person to be re-born. However, what makes a game a game is that it isn't the real world. Sometimes choosing to approximate real physical processes makes a game more fun; sometimes not. I am of the opinion that not including historical monarchs in this historical game makes it less fun. Others obviously disagree. The point is, the fact that this is a game we are talking about makes arguments based on the human reproductive system or probability theory or what-have-you irrelevant. In the end it's a matter of opinion on which approach is more fun, so don't be surprised if almost nobody is converted.

Phil

 

[Bodders]

Sometimes it does.
By the way, about the chances: what are chances to have any historical advisor to be born? same calculations as for monarchs apply.

I made this point but, to be fair, it was pointed out that they've never stated advisors will always appear in the same time/place. I believe advisors will be heavily randomised as well.

The 'realism' argument you've encountered is tired and discredited, though, ignore it

The change to monarchs is a 'gameplay' one and let's hope the improved balance and gameplay does compensate for the loss of flavour for those of us who liked it - I do hope it does and will wait and see.

The reason the argument you meet is pointless is because of points made earlier on in this thread - starting at a date when the heir was already born or your current King is on his deathbed - even on the day he died, has no effect. Also, if there isn't a 'health' rating for monarchs to simulate Edward VI sickliness etc. then that's less realism as well. These facts are ignored by those who espouse it's more realistic that things diverge completely as soon as you start.

It's gameplay and I respect the decisions made on that basis even if I disagree with them.

Put 'realism' in the same rubbish bin as 'start at the date they're alive to get that monarch', 'go read a history book', 'go play civiization' and of course, everyone's favourite, 'mod it'

 

[unmerged(62477)]

The chance of "any historical advisor" to be born is very high, because paradox hasn't named them AFAIK. Therefore, any one genius in the whole of the nation's population can become a historical advisor. The chance is obviously high.

On the other hand, people seem to think that it's reasonable that every historical family develops as it does. It is not. As well as what I said earlier, the development of people is driven partially by events. And, as it is obvious to everyone, events are not strictly historical. Otherwise it wouldn't be a game, would it? That means the people would develop differently.

The environment idea is partially true. But the genes determine the ability and personality, and if the person has more ability then he is going to be able to do things others without ability cannot do. Please don't then go on about this being non-PC, that's just annoying and quite ridiculous (this whole PC stuff). The fact is, someone like, say, Einstein, can do things effortlessly which the bottom-of-the-class-for-his-whole-life-person can't. If environment shapes the person, why do siblings end up different? Why does somebody growing up on the same street as a future rapist/druggie become a billionaire?

 

[Registered]

The chance of "any historical advisor" to be born is very high, because paradox hasn't named them AFAIK. Therefore, any one genius in the whole of the nation's population can become a historical advisor. The chance is obviously high.

They have named them. Just look at the screenshots. There's da Vinci, Helley, Newton, Huigens. and so on and so forth. There might be some random ones there as well, don't know about that.

 

[unmerged(11600)]

The reason the argument you meet is pointless is because of points made earlier on in this thread - starting at a date when the heir was already born or your current King is on his deathbed - even on the day he died, has no effect. Also, if there isn't a 'health' rating for monarchs to simulate Edward VI sickliness etc. then that's less realism as well. These facts are ignored by those who espouse it's more realistic that things diverge completely as soon as you start.

I just want to emphasize the "if there isn't...". The board game does, in fact, include it in the basic, random monarch rules.

-Pat

 

[Bodders]

I just want to emphasize the "if there isn't...". The board game does, in fact, include it in the basic, random monarch rules.

-Pat

Yes, I'd actually expect it to be included, although it may be a 'hidden' value to the players. Someone with a lower value would have an earlier 'mean time to happen' of their death event. Of course, then you start to move in to the CK area of having events dependant on monarch's stats - a more 'warlike' monarch would be more likely to have 'border disputes' and so on. Of course, we know they're not having that many stats. A basic one for health seems reasonable though.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I'm actually waiting in anticipation to see how the new system plays, since that is the most important factor for me, whether the game is fun or not. To see how the quality of the leadership impacts the course of your nation.

 

[unmerged(50629)]

Ok, this was my first review of EU3, just to see if I'd want to buy it, and I saw this thread and it peeked my interest. While I understand the point that historical leaders would only be there if the historical path had been followed, and that most history is changed in game, I have to side with the traditionalist in this argument. If I wanted a solely random game, why not just refer to all the nations randomly, Like calling the eastern nation in Scandinavia Blujecistan or something. There is something in being "Sweden" that is not just a collection of provinces and random names. Sweden "means" something. If it becomes absolutely impossible to follow interesting historical figures, what does being Sweden mean anymore.

There are plenty of games on the market that let you select random countries and go toe to toe. Civ does this perhaps better than others, but it is not the only one. If the idea is move EU toward more context driven and less historical driven activities, doesn't that make the game less distinct than it's previous incarnations? Doesn't it make it more like everything else. I can build the hanging gardens of Paris or of Babylon. I can send Gen. Washington against Gen. Napoleon. I can send Englands powerful Armies against the Naval might of the Island of France. I can get all that from those games.

Now it seems like EU wants to move more this direction. I bought EU because it WASN'T like that, and it is tragic in my view. If it is not possible to follow a historical course at all, what do we really have? I am not asking to be forced thusly, but not option at all is even worse.

I have read some other threads too, and while there is a lot of intersting things here, things I'd like to add to EU2, I simply can not spend money for this game as presently constituted. And that is said given the vast enjoyment I have gained from all their games so far. Frankly EU2+ would be better in my book, I suppose we shall see what happens in the end.

 

[Jools]

the monarchs will be more like in CK which IMO was really cool not just the regular ol' waiting for gustav adolf, sobieski, louis XVI bla bla bla

 

[crusaderknight]

Ok, this was my first review of EU3, just to see if I'd want to buy it, and I saw this thread and it peeked my interest. While I understand the point that historical leaders would only be there if the historical path had been followed, and that most history is changed in game, I have to side with the traditionalist in this argument. If I wanted a solely random game, why not just refer to all the nations randomly, Like calling the eastern nation in Scandinavia Blujecistan or something. There is something in being "Sweden" that is not just a collection of provinces and random names. Sweden "means" something. If it becomes absolutely impossible to follow interesting historical figures, what does being Sweden mean anymore.

There are plenty of games on the market that let you select random countries and go toe to toe. Civ does this perhaps better than others, but it is not the only one. If the idea is move EU toward more context driven and less historical driven activities, doesn't that make the game less distinct than it's previous incarnations? Doesn't it make it more like everything else. I can build the hanging gardens of Paris or of Babylon. I can send Gen. Washington against Gen. Napoleon. I can send Englands powerful Armies against the Naval might of the Island of France. I can get all that from those games.

Now it seems like EU wants to move more this direction. I bought EU because it WASN'T like that, and it is tragic in my view. If it is not possible to follow a historical course at all, what do we really have? I am not asking to be forced thusly, but not option at all is even worse.

I have read some other threads too, and while there is a lot of intersting things here, things I'd like to add to EU2, I simply can not spend money for this game as presently constituted. And that is said given the vast enjoyment I have gained from all their games so far. Frankly EU2+ would be better in my book, I suppose we shall see what happens in the end.

This new system allows us to truly alter history. You see, games that allow you to alter history should be more flexible rather than rigid. I like being able to rewrite history, and rewriting history includes the kings of nations. Why should Edward VI die just before his sixteenth birthday just because he did in real life? If I can change history, then isn't it possible that Edward could survive, and live to the ripe old age of 70? And if so, why should Mary I follow him? She'd be dead by now, probably, and Edward would probably have many children. Why shouldn't his son, let's call him John, become King John II of England? Because it never happened in real life? If that's the case, England should never be allowed to colonize Brazil. They never did in real life either. And if I play as Portugal, I should not be allowed to colonize New England, because Portugal never did in real life. And if I'm Spain, I should never be allowed to convert to Lutheranism, because in real life Spain was vehemently against all forms of Protestantism. And if I'm the Palatinat, I should be forbidden to ever build for myself an empire that spans from Brittany to Vienna and from Denmark to Venice, because in real life the Palatinat never did such a thing. Need I go on?

 

[unmerged(50629)]

This new system allows us to truly alter history. You see, games that allow you to alter history should be more flexible rather than rigid. I like being able to rewrite history, and rewriting history includes the kings of nations. Why should Edward VI die just before his sixteenth birthday just because he did in real life? If I can change history, then isn't it possible that Edward could survive, and live to the ripe old age of 70? And if so, why should Mary I follow him? She'd be dead by now, probably, and Edward would probably have many children. Why shouldn't his son, let's call him John, become King John II of England? Because it never happened in real life? If that's the case, England should never be allowed to colonize Brazil. They never did in real life either. And if I play as Portugal, I should not be allowed to colonize New England, because Portugal never did in real life. And if I'm Spain, I should never be allowed to convert to Lutheranism, because in real life Spain was vehemently against all forms of Protestantism. And if I'm the Palatinat, I should be forbidden to ever build for myself an empire that spans from Brittany to Vienna and from Denmark to Venice, because in real life the Palatinat never did such a thing. Need I go on?

I do not disagree at all, my concern is not that Edward might have lived. My concern is that I can't ever get to him, even if I wanted to. The system denies Traditionialist any method for following a historical course with regards to historical leaders. That is my concern.

 

[crusaderknight]

I do not disagree at all, my concern is not that Edward might have lived. My concern is that I can't ever get to him, even if I wanted to. The system denies Traditionialist any method for following a historical course with regards to historical leaders. That is my concern.

You can get to him. Start during his reign! What's to say that if I start in 1453, the Tudors will even rise to power? What if Henry VI's son survives and becomes king? What if the Lancastrian Dynasty survives for centuries to come?

 

[unmerged(37697)]

What if the Lancastrian Dynasty survives for centuries to come?

And by God it shall

Henry VI, King of England & France, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Burgundy

 

[unmerged(50629)]

You can get to him. Start during his reign! What's to say that if I start in 1453, the Tudors will even rise to power? What if Henry VI's son survives and becomes king? What if the Lancastrian Dynasty survives for centuries to come?

Again, I realise it is possible to start there. My concern is that start early, and you simply can not follow history. There is just no method by which a historical path can even remotely be followed.

In essence, the change has flipped things entirely 180. In EU2, no matter how ahistorical you went, there were only a limited number of events which set up distinct dynasties in discreet born-death dates. Now you can't possibly get there, by any means. You can only do so if you start there. There is no in between.

I fully support ahistorical dynasties, it was one of the interesting choices offered through the event system of EU2. But forced ahistory isn't as inclusive a design choice as choosable ahistory would have been.

Perhaps a choice at start up to allow historical monarchs, even if defaulted to off, would be a nice addition for a patch. We know the historical monarchs are available, if it was possible to add this, it could be the best of both worlds.

 

[unmerged(11600)]

I do not disagree at all, my concern is not that Edward might have lived. My concern is that I can't ever get to him, even if I wanted to. The system denies Traditionialist any method for following a historical course with regards to historical leaders. That is my concern.

But 'randomly generated monarchs' is not the same thing as a 'completely random game' as you equated earlier. Your argument is not only a strawman, it has been used and refuted earlier in this very thread. It is as much a fallacy as the argument that those who want historical monarchs want everything to be absolutely historical. There is no black-and-white either it's absolutely scripted history or else it's absolutely random sandbox.

A major reason behind random monarchs (as well as no longer having events with only nation and date triggers) is that the player should not have foreknowledge of the future. To me and, evidently, the Paradox team, this lack of absolute foreknowledge gives the game a more historical feel.

-Pat

 

[KingOfTheIsles]

So, you are saying that a player should have no foreknowledge of *any* event during the game? Quite clearly, even the historical monarch had some sort of insight into his particular situation. There have been several, very good examples given earlier of how the possibility of a civil war could be gauged before it occured, so arguing that a complete lack of foresight is "historical" is completely absurd.

Now, perhaps if Paradox make a more detailed system of the monarchy and succession, I would be less worried. Whether my monarch is Louis XVI or King Generic III the boring, I at least want to know if I have an heir, whether he is an adult, possible opposition to his claim to the throne and the strength of other opposition etc. or the game becomes a random farce, like the random events in EU2 that basically involved "-3 stability, for absolutely no reason".

Unless there is a system for viewing your monarch that is as sophisticated as the one I described, I would rather have Wiki on Alt-Tab to check historical dates than have my country suddenly fall apart, with no prior warning, which is anything but historical.