Randomized vs Historical games

[unmerged(60152)]

I was thinking... what about a display in the 'options' menu of the game...

How historical do you want this game to be? 10%-25%-50%-75%-100%

If I want the Spanish to conquer (with absolute certainly) the Inca and Azteca Empires, the Dutchmen to colonize Indonesia, and the British settling in North America... I would select 100% of Historical Game.

If I want France to be part of the HRE, Spain to be Protestant and Italy to be unified (for instance) I would select 10% (or even less).

It is just a way to control how randomized we want our game...

What do you think?

 

[EvilSanta]

I dont want to replay history nor I want Aztecs colonizing Siberia so I choose around 40 %.

 

[unmerged(60152)]

I dont want to replay history nor I want Aztecs colonizing Siberia so I choose around 40 %.

That's the point! You would be able to select how randomized do you want your game...

 

[Zeitgeist]

With all due respect, this appears to be a completely impractical idea. Even if you had countries take the historical option 40% of the time, that would not result in a 40% historical game. Spain, France, or the Ottomans for example, taking ahistorical options might easily lead to a large divergence from history as we know it, whereas if Hessen decided to go ahistorical it would likely be almost completely irrelevant to the game.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Well 80 % would feat well. I do not want this game to turn Civ IV (regarding to historical context)

 

[unmerged(60152)]

Even if you had countries take the historical option 40% of the time, that would not result in a 40% historical game. Spain, France, or the Ottomans for example, taking ahistorical options might easily lead to a large divergence from history as we know it

That is right, but if you select 100% historical game, you will have that: an historical game. If you select 80% you would have more chances to do history-fiction... and so on...

Of course you will not be able to control absolutely wich are the randomized events that will or will not happen... but you will have a way (at least) to have a minimal control of it.

 

[Registered]

Nice idea but how in seven hells would you implement it?

 

[Hastu Neon]

75% historical (which is nearby the outcome of EU2), but it seems it's going to be developed by Paradox 25% (which is the outcome of CK)

 

[unmerged(60152)]

Nice idea but how in seven hells would you implement it?

Maybe the programmers could create a hyerarchical system of events, so that some events happen always, some of them when you select 75%... and so on...

It is a humble idea... I am not programmer nor infomatics engineer...

 

[unmerged(5822)]

75% historical (which is nearby the outcome of EU2), but it seems it's going to be developed by Paradox 25% (which is the outcome of CK)

From all that I've seen (I've played a lot of CK), it's more like at least 50%. The straightjacket is gone, but history will still be nudged in a similar direction.

I won't know more until I begin the beta, though, and then I won't be able to tell you that I'm right either.

 

[maartos]

I was thinking... what about a display in the 'options' menu of the game...

How historical do you want this game to be? 10%-25%-50%-75%-100%

If I want the Spanish to conquer (with absolute certainly) the Inca and Azteca Empires, the Dutchmen to colonize Indonesia, and the British settling in North America... I would select 100% of Historical Game.

If I want France to be part of the HRE, Spain to be Protestant and Italy to be unified (for instance) I would select 10% (or even less).

It is just a way to control how randomized we want our game...

What do you think?

Bad idea IMO. A game needs focus, it must try to be good at one thing. Not try to be 20 games in 1 and serve every possible audience; that will only leave all audiences underserved.

 

[Hunter Wesley]

Aztecs colonizing Siberia

:rofl:

I guess it would be nice to have one switch which either forces the AI to do certain things historically or lets them explore to some degree.

The main concern is how historical the game will be without such control. We don't know. Or perhaps the game is good enough that it does not matter. History is pretty important to me, so whatever happens should IMO be plausible.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

From all that I've seen (I've played a lot of CK), it's more like at least 50%. The straightjacket is gone, but history will still be nudged in a similar direction.

I won't know more until I begin the beta, though, and then I won't be able to tell you that I'm right either.

But you'll be able to tell me, assuming my mail gets to them fine and I filled out it properlly.

 

[Pellucid]

So what would 100% do? Fix battles? Would armies only move to locations they historically moved? Provinces would only change hands as they did historically? The player obviously couldn't do anything ahistorical or the game wouldn't know how to react. Why even bother having it be a game at that point? Just make an animated GIF that shows history play out.

 

[unmerged(60152)]

Bad idea IMO. A game needs focus, it must try to be good at one thing. Not try to be 20 games in 1 and serve every possible audience; that will only leave all audiences underserved.

It would not be 20 games but one game with several possibilities. It would open a new universe in historical possibilities that would make the game even more attractive than it already is. If it is technically possible, I think it is a good idea. If you do not like it you could leave the 'default options' in the menu.

 

[unmerged(60152)]

So what would 100% do? Fix battles? Would armies only move to locations they historically moved? Provinces would only change hands as they did historically? The player obviously couldn't do anything ahistorical or the game wouldn't know how to react. Why even bother having it be a game at that point? Just make an animated GIF that shows history play out.

100% would fit history except your own game (Logically, the game could not control your will. Of course, it would be nonsense). If you play with France and want to colonize Africa is ok... but the AI, in a 100%-historical-interface would make Spain to conquer the Inca and Azteca Empire, etc...
The good point of this is that, knowing the real history, you would be able to change it...

On the other hand if you do not want a historical-game you can select 0% or 25% or whatever...

As I said before in this thread, if it is technically possible, it would be a good idea, because It would fit the aims of every player.

 

[knul]

I was thinking... what about a display in the 'options' menu of the game...

How historical do you want this game to be? 10%-25%-50%-75%-100%

The problem with this is, what is meant by a "25% historical game"? That 25% of all historical events fire? If so, which ones? Other than that, I can't imagine a way to make a game "X% historical".

But rest assured, there will be plenty of mods that implement all kinds of historical determinism (or lack of that). I think that several heartbeats after the Byzantium mods hits the dowload queues, there will be talk of an EU3 AGCEEP mod.

 

[Havard]

What do you think?

I think it's not going to happend.

 

[unmerged(60152)]

The problem with this is, what is meant by a "25% historical game"? That 25% of all historical events fire?

25% historical-events & 75% randomized-events.

If so, which ones? Other than that, I can't imagine a way to make a game "X% historical"

I have already posted in this tread how could it be done:

Maybe the programmers could create a hyerarchical system of events, so that some historical events happen always, some of them when you select 75%... and so on... It is a humble idea, I am not programmer...

 

[unmerged(60152)]

I think it's not going to happend.

We'll have to wait untill EU4...