Playing historically, does anyone do it?

[Munin]

Does anyone play historically? And how far do you go?
For example: the order of missions you choose in the mission tree, the choice of cities to found after conquest through the mission tree events, empowering important historical families, integrating/assimilating cultures, army composition, alliances and in case of Rome: waiting to enact the punic reforms law for the apropriate time.

I noticed in the forums that it is possible to empower the jullii family of Gaius Julius Caesar, see this thread by dunka2 https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/great-family-system.1460821/ and also that it is possible to recreate the cities Rome founded (I made a suggestion to include this in the tooltip for events to inform players https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/great-family-system.1460821/).

(picture of the Battle of Zama during the punic war)

 

[Maria Theresa]

Playing historically is the only way i play. For the most part. I try to expand in historical(ly plausible) directions, build cities where it makes sense. Ally countries that would have been allies historically etc. Try to help out historically relevant AI characters(like Pyrrhus) to succeed if i can.

 

[unnamed91]

I always play historically.

 

[OnlyTheWeakFearWords]

Almost never, for two reasons. One, I don't have the in depth knowledge of history to even attempt this. Two, the fun for me in grand strategy games is creating my own history. I haven't even touched Rome yet in I:R. All my playthroughs have been about trying to see what other nations can crush Rome before it ever rises.

 

[MohawkWolfo98]

2.0 and the Imperial CB makes it so much easier to play historically. I find that one thing alone increased my fun of this game so much. Because of the tight game length, having such a great CB gives me time to sit back and have fun during the years of consolidation

 

[Battlex]

Does anyone play historically? And how far do you go?
For example: the order of missions you choose in the mission tree, the choice of cities to found after conquest through the mission tree events, empowering important historical families, integrating/assimilating cultures, army composition, alliances and in case of Rome: waiting to enact the punic reforms law for the apropriate time.

I noticed in the forums that it is possible to empower the jullii family of Gaius Julius Caesar, see this thread by dunka2 https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/great-family-system.1460821/ and also that it is possible to recreate the cities Rome founded (I made a suggestion to include this in the tooltip for events to inform players https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/great-family-system.1460821/).

(picture of the Battle of Zama during the punic war)
View attachment 690327

All paradox games I try to do what historical ambitions for my state were rather than mix max (apart from conquering indochina as everyone in vic2) and then normally once I reach that I quit as bored

 

[The_Sound_Of_Violence]

Almost never, for two reasons. One, I don't have the in depth knowledge of history to even attempt this. Two, the fun for me in grand strategy games is creating my own history. I haven't even touched Rome yet in I:R. All my playthroughs have been about trying to see what other nations can crush Rome before it ever rises.

I would still call that playing historically. You get into one of Rome neighbours' shoes and ask yourself what they would do in that situation. Getting back at the big red bully is probably not to unfair an assumption.

As for myself, as others have said, I try to do things that would make sense historically whether that leads to an outcome similar to what actually happened or not. When the mission trees incite us to do that, I gladly folllow them.

 

[AggaWackTan]

Only when playing Rome. But when playing this was way it starts to feel like a race. And the mission system isn’t designed to switch between Iberia, Africa, Illyria and Greece the way the Romans did. That’s one reason why I find playing Rome frustrating

This is why I’d like to see missions become a broad branch and less specific with an event attached. The IR missions are just so horrendously specific and the issue of not being allowed to switch focus without being penalised is not good

 

[schultz]

I usually play as Rome, and attempt to expand in the same manner the Republic did historically.
But I notice the AI does NOT play historically at all.
The AIs for Carthage/Antigonids/Macedonia are ridiculously aggressive, to the point where it's immersion-breaking.

 

[Will Steel]

I always play historically. Always follow historical empire borders, always build up historical cities and metropolis locations, and try to maintain dynasties and governments as they did in that period.

The only time I play ahistorically are when I am playing a tiny nation or a tribe, because you have to expand somewhere to survive in this game.

 

[Pro]

No. The game's not historical at all, so I don't see the point to it.

 

[Lord Lambert]

I wouldn't DREAM of playing ahistorically. Get outta here with that crap!

*cough*

 

[Hootieleece]

I generally try to play Historically....when playing Rome since I know the History and Timeline, but even my attempts veer into the ahistorical.

If I play any other Faction....be they Kingdom, Tribe, or City-State my playthroughs are even more ahistorical, BECAUSE I don't know the history....

I would say that when playing this or any PDS game I look for the "Historically Plausible" ahistorical outcome.

Unfortunately some of the titles have gone well beyond that into Historical Fantasy.....

 

[Galaahd]

I always try to play historically, or at least in a historically plausible way.

To me Paradox games are fun as long as I can roleplay and immerse myself in the period.