Because china is china! Is a unicum! other countries changed, shiftched etc
- 2
- 1
-
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'm talking for myself, here, not for the whole "anti mission trees faction", but I am also against unique units, mechanics and national ideas (to not talk about monuments, but that's another conversation).
Let me try to explain.
I am not against the mere existence of things like streltsy or banners, nor am I against the existence of militarization as a possible mechanic. I am also not against the fact that France *could* start with a unique mechanic called "appanages". I am against the idea that those should be linked to cultures. In my mind, they should be government reforms, or things that are unlocked when your country reaches certain pre-requisites.
However, if they are "cultural", my main gripe then becomes that they offer a fixed vision of culture, just like national ideas give a fixed idea of what a country is good at. They go with some tributtons and unique mechanics.
I would say I'm against a fixed view of history. From 1337 onward, the World should be alive and moving. This doesn't preclude having ongoing situations in parts of the world. It doesn't either mean that polities shouldn't start with particular mechanics enabled, but as much as possible, they shouldn't stay stuck with those until 1836.
Now, going back to streltsy, banners and appanages, if it were possible for other countries to get them, it shouldn't be a walk in the park. And making them so difficult to get as to be functionnally only something Russians, Manchus and French can get probably defeats the purpose of making them attainable by others. Why spend so much development time making a mechanic universal if it is universal only in principle?
Yet I think if you study why those realities evolved, you should be able to get an idea of how they could have evolved elsewhere.
And... I'm not talking about the names. A british imperial guard would obviously not be called "streltsy". I'm talking about the reality this mechanic is meant to represent.
As for religions, I also think in an ideal world, they should be reformable. What was the reformation if not an attempt to reform the Catholic Church? However, moreso than with my previous comments, I think making a mechanic by which you could get a Theravada papacy or a Shinto college of cardinals, while fun, would point to processes that would have took a while, or a considerable effort to be put in place.
I like CK3 approach, but I think it's too easy to make massive changes to religion/culture with minimal input from what's happening in-game.
- 5
- 5
Please clarify, this sounds like your opinion is "nothing linked to tags, except for China", which seems ... highly improbable.
When did I mention India? You are conflating "Hindustan" and "India," here. I was referring to the Indo-Gangetic Plain. And because I'm kind of an ass, I'll list out ten polities who managed to unify that portion, just off the top of my head:
- The Nandas
- The Shungas
- The Mauryas
- The Guptas
- Harsha
- The Ghurids
- The Delhi Sultanate (under the Mamluks, the Khaljis, and the Tughlaqs - do I get three points for this?)
- The Mughals
- The Marathas
- The British
So how was the Indo-Gangetic Plain, the land that was called Hindustan, so different, again? A lack of perceived imperial continuity is certainly a good counterargument, though that is all it is - perceived. Administrative institutions certainly persevered across empires, but they differed in small ways each time.
- 6
The problem with your argument is that at this point in time when the game starts is exactly when the borders between culture and nation become murky... France is the nation of the French people, just as Italy is the nation of the Italian people and England is the nation of the English people... we can only assume that any polity that unites these regions would go by that same name, because we don't know anything else. And it is impossible to know anything else, because that is how the history of our world went.
A Duke of Burgundy that conquers France would likely call himself King of France, and for all purposes he would indeed be the 'France' Tag. So in your example, having Tag=Fra would be exactly the same as having Culture_group=French, but one is given priority because that is what we naturally assume to be the 'end goal' of any French nation: The creation of a French state, which is France. You are arguing AGAINST being France, when instead you should be thinking 'Would Toulouse, Barois, Anjou, Burgundy, or any other French minor duchy not claim to be Kings of France if they conquered France?' and the answer to that is 'No, most of the time, they wouldn't.'
Your example of 300 years and enmity is great, certainly. But how can an imperfect game accomodate for all of that? In the end, it is a game. And it must follow what makes the most sense to us and to what we know, and what is fun.
We can always think of what could be and what ifs, but in that case I propose to you a question: Why should there be Regional Flavor in the first place? It can arguably be considered to be stupid, weird, and immersion-breaking, since there is no guarantee that there would ever be a French people in the lands of Western Europe after a hundred years, or that indeed a French state would ever be created... who's to say that England wouldn't just conquer it all and make them all English? Who's to say the Holy Roman Empire wouldn't make them all German? Who's to say Spain would invade and make France a region of Spain? We make so many assumptions about what France should be, but why waste time on French Culture Events? That would obviously be rail-roading and forcing a french state to exist, we can't possibly have that, right? It would ruin the sandbox!
That's the sort of bad faith arguments that most people are so tired of, and why in the end 'Tag flavour' is preferred over 'Regional flavour' by most people... because that's what we know, and what we want to play. It's our nations, it's our history, and that's what the vast majority want to play... No matter how many times people here on the forums insist that they want a perfect sandbox where everything is rational and everything can happen only with game mechanics and no forced events at all, such a thing is simply not possible with our current technology... that would be the realm of simulations and require AI, since there would be so much to account for, so much outside of what can be coded and planned for.
- 7
- 3
This is impossible, by the way. You are asking to account for implausible situations. We (well, I) are asking to account for plausible ones.
Ironic that you would describe those arguments as "bad faith" while misrepresenting them.
- 3
- 2
Who are you to decide what is or what is not impossible? It is extremely unlikely, yes, but is it impossible? In Eu4 and other Paradox games, even more unlikely situations happen. I don't think it is as unlikely as you think, especially in a 'sandbox' as so many seem to hope for.
Which is exactly why all these arguments are in bad faith, as you are extremely quick to call out things that do not align exactly with your 'perfect view' of what a game should and should not be, while discounting that most people just want to have fun and play their own nations or nearby nations. So yes, most people are tired. Because these forums do not represent the majority of people and most players do not actually agree with everything that the sandbox-advocates say, they just don't bother to speak against it. They, instead, represent it through simply not playing. Which is how you get games like Imperator.
- 2
- 2
- 1
Very well. What, then, would you prefer, exactly? Would you prefer TAG-related mechanics be akin to EUIV? Certainly you do not want a railroaded experience - or do you (or, as the Vic3 DDs say, a "guided tour")? Are you saying nothing needs to change from EUIV, in this case? Or that something needs to change, but not as much as us "bad faith posters" are suggesting? How much needs to change, then? And what needs to change? I of course ask you this in good faith, because I genuinely want to know what you want. After all, Johan has confirmed that tag-specific mechanics, along with religion-, culture-, and region-specific mechanics will be in the game. So you need not fearmonger about Imperator, or Vic3, or whatever other game you dislike. The ball is, for all intents and purposes, in your court, here.
Certainly I do not expect to see anything close to what I am suggesting - but I would welcome a step in that direction. So, what is it you want, be it in terms of mission trees, or mechanics, or events? And be specific, if you will, because "fun" is not helpful at all.
- 4
You may disagree with our position, as is your right, but accusing us of arguing in bad faith because our position is "less popular" is a logical fallacy. We are as entitled to our opinions as you are. In any case, Johan made it clear that tag magic will still exist. So congratulations, Vox populi vox dei. That doesn't mean we have to be happy about it and can't try to sway people to our position in an attempt to avoid the travesty that recent EU4 has become.
- 5
I mean, the chine is the china, is a unicum, for this motive they not changed much...but the other countries changed a lot during the years. In china instead changed only the ruling dinasty and if are open or closed toward foreinger!
- 4
- 1
Just to double check, tag specific content is bad, but making content so specific so it may as well be tag specific is good?
Does this just arise for some pathological fear of the phrase "tag ="?
Does this just arise for some pathological fear of the phrase "tag ="?
- 7
- 5
It just feels like a lot of people argue for nation flavour to be removed completely, which is weird since they seem to be passionately against anything and everything that could possibly be considered 'unique'. Is it really so bad to have events that only happen to certain nations, or to have certain historical outcomes be favoured? I also like regional flavour for all nations of a certain culture, I also like new mechanics. But I also enjoy the narrative of following a mission tree and trying to get a historical outcome, I also enjoy learning a bit about some small tidbits of history through fun flavour events for the nation I am playing. Why is it that people here are so against having both of those things?
EUIV certainly isn't a perfect example to follow. A lot can be said about how bloated it has gotten over the years. The most recent mission trees are, in my opinion, far too strong and unnecessary in comparison to old ones, and sometimes have completely silly things that should have no place in a 'somewhat' historical game, such as the Teutonic Horde. But it also has good things, which should be taken as an example. I doubt anyone was really annoyed about England finally being able to form the Angevin Empire instead of Great Britain. And, if they are, why? I am genuinely curious. Would they prefer to just have a formable? Would they rather England just be 'England' but french culture? If there is no unique flavour, should any of the French or English releasable tags be able to form the Angevin Empire? Or should such a thing be completely done away with, as it would be 'unique content' suitable only for England to form and thus undesirable and a waste of time?
Many people actually like being taken on a 'guided tour', as you say. There is reason casual players end a lot of playthroughs end when the mission tree is finished -- because EU4 is a flawed game, and much could be improved upon. It's been years since release! I want to see improved diplomacy that allows me to interact and influence other nations without war, I want to see wars that aren't fought until 100% warscore, I want to have more to do within my own borders that isn't just pressing development buttons and constructing buildings. As, I assume, so do you. But why must all of that come at the cost of unique flavour for nations that people like and want to play, such as England, France, Ottomans, Russia, Japan, China?
I just want a good game. I'm seeing a lot of promises being made for Caesar, and it is starting to remind me of Victoria 3's dev diaries, where they also made a lot of promises and assurances. In the end, a lot of people ended up disappointed. I'm sure a few were pleased to have Victoria 3 release as it did, but I personally don't want that to happen again. And I think removing unique nation/tag flavour -- as so many advocate for -- would be a step in that direction.
- 4
- 2
There's a big difference between "Only the FRA tag can get this event, no matter how little sense that makes or how much sense it would make for some other tag to get that event" and "Only a nation that meets these five prerequisites can get this event, and absent player intervention only FRA will ever meet those prerequisites in 99.9% of games". The former is rigid and restrictive, ignores the context of the game, and ultimately fails as a game mechanic because it doesn't respond to player choices. The latter manages to capture all of the good parts of the former approach while avoiding all of its downsides; it lets the "intended" "historical" outcome occur most of the time, but also respects the player's actions by responding to them appropriately, and occasionally throws an oddball outcome to keep the game from getting stale.
- 6
- 1
If you're hanging this whole discussion on the difference between "Might as well be" and "99.9% of games", I hope you understand why you're not convincing many people...
- 1
I'm not trying to hang anything on the difference between "might as well be" and "99.9% of games". Those two terms are synonymous, and I chose to use one rather than the other essentially at random. My argument works just as well with the other phrasing.
Let's have a system where you get a disaster called the 'the English civil war', it's not tied to a tag, but you only get it if you are in England, and you are called England, and your nation is English.
- 6
- 2
Historically and mechanically speaking, this should be attributed to such reasons:
1. Any Chinese warlord may find himself in such a situation: win the whole china quickly or lose everything quickly. There were times that division existed for some time, but not as fragmented as HRE.
2.for the warlord himself, conquering the whole china is worthy - their subjects speak one same language and believe one same/similar religion, which makes administration easily. It’s much cheaper than conquering Tibet or Mongolia.
So I prefer to find some relation between historical rulers’ motivation and PDX players’ motivation, in which, both of the motivations exist within certain environments - for the former one, it’s the political situation, and for the second one, the mechanic. So the political situation and the mechanic should be related too,
which, which, has not that many things to do with cultures I think. The only form of the influence of culture or religion on the economic mechanism that I can accept is probably the Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism.
Last edited:
- 1
How will the game avoid countries being similar except having different cultures/religions/population counts that are in different regions of the world?
One issue Victoria 3 currently faces is that despite countries having different starting positions both geographically and internally, the building pattern and cycle as well as the technology path tends to be repetitive.
Will cultures in this game have different assets or traits the same way they do in CK3 and the same way religion does in EU4? What about specialized units that give you advantages to capitalize on?
Will countries be encouraged to do one thing over the other such as England having an inherent ability to dominate the seas or the Dutch to trade more efficiently than its larger and military stronger neighbors? Or will Austrian leaders more often than not also be HRE emperors?
- 2
Yes, when fatherlorris was summarizing the position they disagree with. I don't understand what you find amusing about the situation.The other is the one fatherlorris used in the post you disagreed with