I can actually see you dsicplinary record. Sometimes it's a reply like that or because of the crap you have posted before a ban. Sadly the message doesn't always get through mind you.
Question about peace deals
- Thread starter unmerged(185163)
- 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.
- Status
I can actually see you dsicplinary record. Sometimes it's a reply like that or because of the crap you have posted before a ban. Sadly the message doesn't always get through mind you.
I will wait to play the game before yelling that the current system is broken. When I first read of it, I thought it might have problems but the more I think of it the more I think that it will simplify the process of settling wars. I always conquered states wholesale anyway. But of course, the old province system was fine for me too... just not the AI.
Last edited:
Probably because you don't code yourself.
Plus if (and it's not even an "if") any mechanism in the game works state wise you're invalidating it if you part a province away from that given state (not even mentionning game balance). The mechanism could only work in a game with dynamic state creation or something like that which is probably too much hassle for the benefit.
No, I don't code myself. That's why I pay money for games, you know.
And in my opinion whether the AI can use single-province peace deals is unimportant, it doesn't need to. The important thing is that I, the player, can use it to create the nation that I want.
If I think that Pilsen is a god-given part of Germany, but not Praque, then I want to be able to take that one province even if it's in the same state as a lot of Czechs. For example. Or if Finland wants Åland back, it doesn't have to take the whole of Svealand to do so (how does this system work for states with a capital in them anyway?).
It doesn't matter whether or not the AI can use the single-province system, because I can. And besides, it's not like the AI can really use the state-system either. And if someone tells me that it can, well, I'll believe a paradox-AI can do anything only when I see it, not before.
One of stronger problems with splitting states is (IMO) the fact they work as containers to factories. If state is split those who didn't happen to be on the right side of border are suddenly unemployed even though factories represent large industries that can employ hundreds of thousands.
Also, how would factory building work with split states? Allow all parts of state build factories? Only allow state capital owner build factories? What happens to factories that were in different parts of state? Etc.
Also, how would factory building work with split states? Allow all parts of state build factories? Only allow state capital owner build factories? What happens to factories that were in different parts of state? Etc.
Whatever Duuk's posting history may be, he's not an idiot for pointing out an obvious design flaw.
If Macau and Hong Kong are part of the same state but simply forcibly divided in the scenario files, if China retakes Macau before Britain takes Hong Kong, there's no way for Britain to achieve it's historical boundaries.
It's poor design when the political borders at the beginning of the game couldn't have come about through the in-game peace system.
In all honesty though, would it be worth changing an otherwise well-designed mechanic just so the UK could get the precise historical borders it had in China? Would your gameplay experience really suffer because of this?
Yeah, it would be nice if every exact borders could be achieved, but from what I have seen so far, this really won't be something you are too worried about when you are playing. The way I see it, it's not a poor design decision, it's just not a 100% perfect one, and there are no designs that are 100% perfect.
I've been following this argument about peace deals for quite a long time now and it seems to me that people don't seem to understand that asking single provinces just doesn't fit the design philosophy.
- States contain factories, so it would be hard to determine how to share the factories
- The AI can't cope well with single provinces as seen on EU3. Of course it could be coded to do that but it would take time and asking states is a simpler solution
- The game is a sandbox. The UK is not meant to own only Hong Kong, there's no reason to have countries taking only provinces they historically owned.
- States contain factories, so it would be hard to determine how to share the factories
- The AI can't cope well with single provinces as seen on EU3. Of course it could be coded to do that but it would take time and asking states is a simpler solution
- The game is a sandbox. The UK is not meant to own only Hong Kong, there's no reason to have countries taking only provinces they historically owned.
Btw. giving Hong Kong as example is still flawed, because UK didn't annex it, they just obtained 99 years lease on it, which is something you'll still won't be able to replicate
Maybe there can be some other solution. Something like "control ports" war goal and peace option, which would give you some benefits without actually owning that whole province.
Maybe there can be some other solution. Something like "control ports" war goal and peace option, which would give you some benefits without actually owning that whole province.
I can't comment on how well-designed the peace and state mechanics are at this time, as I haven't played the game and have no idea just how many issues it may or may not cause. I find the concept fairly sound, but implementation is where problems always lie.
If two provinces the size of Macau and Hong Kong ending up forcibly linked together for the rest of time is the extent of it, it's not going to have a major impact on the overall gameplay experience for most players.
However, the decision to join them into a single state is very odd given that it does not seem to be done for any practical purpose -- if they're going to start split, why are they not simply two individual states? Why does the scenario at game start not reflect the mechanics of the peace system? That's where the flaw in design lies.
From my perspective it doesn't really matter - as, for the start, I used to edit state boudariers in Vic1 so if I need to split the state in Vic2 I'll just do it.
However I do agree that "all or nothing design" it is flawed. I also find King's comment unacceptable. Abusing customers is not a best way to achive the success of the game.
However I do agree that "all or nothing design" it is flawed. I also find King's comment unacceptable. Abusing customers is not a best way to achive the success of the game.
If the system isn't designed to model the world it's set in, that's a problem.
ETA: Not necessarily a large problem, given that we're talking about very small independent states in a world of massive empires, but from a design standpoint, the game's mechanics don't really mesh with the situation at the game's start, which is unfortunate as the seamless integration of game mechanics is one of the hallmarks of sound game design.
Last edited:
To quote a famous professor, who teaches modelling and simulation courses to engineers and biologists:
The world is not perfect. You will never find a model that allows you to wrap everything that could plausibly happen with a given system into a sound model. Especially not when you have to include an artificial intelligence into the system.
Victoria aims at simulating grand strategy on a world scale, i.e. France vs Prussia, Russia vs Britain, Brazil vs Netherlands, Serbia vs Ottoman Empire - that sort of thing. Not Liechtenstein vs San Marino, Ragusa vs Montenegro or Monaco vs Vatican State. Microstates are not the focus of the game, even though of course there were plenty of microstates in the 19th century. Design decision.
They chose a "granularity" of provinces and states which lets you replicate the major conflicts of the Victorian age both in terms of army movements and battles as well as in the territorial effects of the peace terms. The did this knowing that they would with this system not be able to faithfully reproduce something like WW2 or the Yugoslavian wars of the 20th century.
I'm neither an engineer nor a biologist, but I do know that a game is perfectly capable of having internally consistent rules. This is a design decision that has resulted in the designer having to circumvent his own system in order to set the game up. That's not ideal, but it's certainly acceptable. Trying to pass it off as an ideal system that people are too stupid to understand is just wrong, though.
When you make any model, you have to take into account that there is indirect proportion between simplicity and reality. The more real model you make, the less simple it is. And the less simple it is, the harder it is to balance/predict/use etc. etc.
Simple and yet realistic model for anything more complex then two or three people interacting together is like perpetuum mobile. Great, but pure fantasy.
dont think this was addressed earlier. there are a lot of war goals that are not related to taking states too, and gaining prestige is very important (as is hurting others prestige) because of how good having a larger high prestige sphere is, so waging wars just for prestige is not too uncommon.
Well, I agree, but I don't know how this is relevant to my comment, as I wasn't speaking about the level of complexity involved in any system, only on the lack of consistency in a system where territorial exchanges occur in the form of states except for when they don't. If anything, the current system seems too complex and messy for my tastes.
- Status