So who's the FRANCOPHILE on the design team?

[Acularius]

It is an era essentially centered on Europe, I don't see the problem that they would have more events as the game concept itself is Euro Centric... it is called 'Victoria' for a reason.
I don't think France was really 'weak' in this point of history, just made some bad decisions that you can't FORCE the AI to do. (It does some well enough anyhow)
It isn't hard to beat France as Russia, so long as you get Russia rolling decently enough... I haven't played the 'base' game in a while. Usually play it modded.

The US usually gets some good events, prime target for immigration to the New World, so on and so forth... so long as it wins the Civil War and doesn't involve itself in too many losing wars, then they usually 'win'.

Makes me sad when the US invades Canada, it also makes me want to read Turtledove's alternate reality novels based in this time period.

 

[degen83]

I haven't played France ... but if this is true, then that kind of stinks. I would imagine it is the same for the UK ... getting a ton of events too.

When i played as the UK I did not get a huge amount of events. No more so than when I played as Russia or Germany.

The UK is just so big though, and once your turn India into states ... man, your industrial score skyrockets.
I do not consider the UK extremely challenging because you start off in such a dominant position. I use my fleet to blockade people I don't like (who I'm at war with) and build up an army capable of smashing anyone. With the Indian pops you can easily field one of the biggest militaries in the world. My last UK game my army rivalled China's in terms of numbers, and with my vastly superior techs and civilised status (my gaurds versus their militias) I was able to steamroll China, and anyone else, whenever I wanted.

If you can get a high enough military score most other countries won't mess with you. I had Russia so scared of me they didn't even protect China when China was in Russia's SOI and I declared war on China to takes Xinjiang and Hong kong.

It can be fun playing the UK, but you start off as number 1. Its not that difficult to remain number 1 by the end of the game.

 

[Beagá]

Actually if you haven´t held that position you failed hard at the game heh.

Problems with simulating the UK are many, biggest of all is that unlike happened in history neither Germany or the US can surpass the UK because of the absurd industrialization in colonies that become states, plus too much assimilation which means too many accepted POPs = huge industrial AND military score.

 

[Iguanaonastick]

Isn't saying that France was slipping from power in the Victoria era a bit "hindsight 20/20"?

For most of the nineteenth century France was still seen as the supreme power in Europe, internal struggles notwithstanding. The UK may have had that huge empire and Britannia certainly did rule the waves but that didn't make them anywhere near a match for France on land.

The Prussians beat them in 1870, of course, but that was far from a foregone conclusion. On a technological level the French armies were a very good match for the Prussian ones. IIRC the Prussians had superior artillery but couldn't match the French infantry one on one. The French were defeated so utterly because Moltke was a genius and the Germans had much better tactics. In an alternate history game like this it makes sense to me that events should play out differently a good percentage of the time. (Though I agree it shouldn't happen differently all the time.)

I've always found the Japanese reaction an amusing illustration of the contemporary mindset. When they first tried to adapt western technology they hired the best of the best to advise and train their armies: the French. But as soon as the Germans won their war they fired their French advisers and swapped them for Prussian ones and those became the model for their westernized society. Point being: Yes, the Prussians came out on top, but it surprised everybody at the time.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

One of the fallacies people often commit in discussions like this is to regard the actual historical outcome as the "correct" one, and the simulation to be bad if it doesn't lead to something roughly like it. The game is intended to be a sandbox, not a replay of history. Whether it should be that is another discussion which there's essentially no correct answer to, the matter being ultimately one of preference.

There is no real reason to believe that history, in anything other than very large, general trends, is some kind of inevitable track towards predetermined outcomes. History as we know it was just as much a result of random chance and improbable fluke as the result of predictable forces. Nor is actual history some "golden mean" or sum of average results, there's no reason to presume that if, for example, you had 100 perfect simulations of the world in 1836, each country's performance averaged over all simulations would be anywhere equal to its real historical performance.

 

[ajax.hsp]

One of the fallacies people often commit in discussions like this is to regard the actual historical outcome as the "correct" one, and the simulation to be bad if it doesn't lead to something roughly like it. The game is intended to be a sandbox, not a replay of history. Whether it should be that is another discussion which there's essentially no correct answer to, the matter being ultimately one of preference.

There is no real reason to believe that history, in anything other than very large, general trends, is some kind of inevitable track towards predetermined outcomes. History as we know it was just as much a result of random chance and improbable fluke as the result of predictable forces. Nor is actual history some "golden mean" or sum of average results, there's no reason to presume that if, for example, you had 100 perfect simulations of the world in 1836, each country's performance averaged over all simulations would be anywhere equal to its real historical performance.

Yes, we get it, the game is a sandbox, so it shouldn't be 100% historical. But how about 50/50? Regarding current topic, I have uber France in every game. So it's 100/0 in my games. I don't like it to be a constant.

And I don't agree about non-"correct" history. What happened in history IS correct. Mostly it was random and too complex to simulate, but it was correct.
Back in 1871 Prussia had solid and disciplined strong army and also German minors as allies. You can't just say that the victory was random.
But in my games I see 20 brigades in NGF...

I don't say Germany should be formed in every game, but at least 50/50 would be enough.

 

[unmerged(38333)]

Maybe a bit off the subject, buy IMO the main issue with this game is that players do not have enough control.

It doesnt matter what happened historically. What does it matter if France wasnt a powerhouse, or UK was a monster or anything? If I wanted to recreate history, I would read a history book.

Here I want to re-write history. And the game should give the player enough control to turn quite a few countries to powerhouses. Granted, turning Greece into a powerhouse should not be possible, but a truly good player should be have the control required to turn any of Uk/France/USA/Germany/Austria/Japan/Italy into a really awesome GP.

As was the case with V2, only a handfull of those could be really turned into monsters and the rest were doomed into second-place roles no matter how well you played.

Just a note: Of course I am not talking about SP games here, I am talking about MP games.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Yes, we get it, the game is a sandbox, so it shouldn't be 100% historical. But how about 50/50? Regarding current topic, I have uber France in every game. So it's 100/0 in my games. I don't like it to be a constant.

Of course, that's something everyone agrees on, things that are ahistorical shouldn't happen the same way every time. But there are few cases where that really happens, Prussian Jutland being almost the only one. Don't really know about France, it seems to vary from version to version.

And I don't agree about non-"correct" history. What happened in history IS correct. Mostly it was random and too complex to simulate, but it was correct.

No, it wasn't. It's just what happened, one possibility out of an infinite number of more and less likely possibilities. That that particular trajectory was selected instead of any other has absolutely no implication on a game where sandbox-ism is a basic design principle and axiomatic.

Back in 1871 Prussia had solid and disciplined strong army and also German minors as allies. You can't just say that the victory was random.
But in my games I see 20 brigades in NGF...

And France had a number of compensating advantages, such as better small arms and a larger standing army (the Prussian army of the war was largely conscript, with the officer corps being the only really good part of it). As Iguanaonastick said, Prussian victory was not a sure thing.

The justification for why German unification should be possible in the game is that the underlying forces that made it eventually happen were present already in 1836. That German unification actually happened doesn't (by itself) dictate a thing. At best, it implies that there should be a possibility of it happening.

 

[ajax.hsp]

No, it wasn't. It's just what happened, one possibility out of an infinite number of more and less likely possibilities. That that particular trajectory was selected instead of any other has absolutely no implication on a game where sandbox-ism is a basic design principle and axiomatic.

I believe we have pretty much the same opinion about history, just differs what is "correct"

The justification for why German unification should be possible in the game is that the underlying forces that made it eventually happen were present already in 1836. That German unification actually happened doesn't (by itself) dictate a thing. At best, it implies that there should be a possibility of it happening.

If you put it that way... maybe. But still, game related - Prussia/NGF are constantly weak when AI playing it, Austria and France (not in alliance) always smash it.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

Nor is actual history some "golden mean" or sum of average results, there's no reason to presume that if, for example, you had 100 perfect simulations of the world in 1836, each country's performance averaged over all simulations would be anywhere equal to its real historical performance.

That's more of a philosophical problem than a historiographical one.

When prevailing scientific theories point to free will being an illusion all assumptions about chance are just that, assumptions. A 100% perfect simulation of a purely deterministic universe would be indistinguishable from a preset narrative. Not to mention being a pretty dull video game.

 

[Beagá]

Of course, that's something everyone agrees on, things that are ahistorical shouldn't happen the same way every time. But there are few cases where that really happens, Prussian Jutland being almost the only one. Don't really know about France, it seems to vary from version to version.

No, it wasn't. It's just what happened, one possibility out of an infinite number of more and less likely possibilities. That that particular trajectory was selected instead of any other has absolutely no implication on a game where sandbox-ism is a basic design principle and axiomatic.

And France had a number of compensating advantages, such as better small arms and a larger standing army (the Prussian army of the war was largely conscript, with the officer corps being the only really good part of it). As Iguanaonastick said, Prussian victory was not a sure thing.

The justification for why German unification should be possible in the game is that the underlying forces that made it eventually happen were present already in 1836. That German unification actually happened doesn't (by itself) dictate a thing. At best, it implies that there should be a possibility of it happening.

It´s a matter of taste. The fact you think like that doesn´t mean it´s the way the game should be. The point ajax is trying to make is that the historical outcome should be the most frequent instead of NEVER happening. Also, sandbox as a game model has several flaws, the main one is that ultimatedly the only worthy goal is conquering as much as possible, making every game lame and repetitive. One reason why Magna Mundi was a great mod was that you had to choose paths and it was impossible to have everything at the end of the game, while in the current game even civilized nations can end as great power. If I manage to become number 1 with, say, Denmark, what´s the incentive of playing the UK or US? Ending the game with more land? Lame.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

It´s a matter of taste.

It is indeed.

However, the notion that the game should be sandbox is a stated game design goal by those who made the game. Therefore, if the game behaves in true sandbox fashion, it's WAD. Not necessarily your thing, but WAD nevertheless. And since the game is intended to be that way, the fact that a country in the game doesn't on average perform in a historical way is not (by itself) a sign of the game not working as intended.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

That's more of a philosophical problem than a historiographical one.

When prevailing scientific theories point to free will being an illusion all assumptions about chance are just that, assumptions. A 100% perfect simulation of a purely deterministic universe would be indistinguishable from a preset narrative. Not to mention being a pretty dull video game.

Well, those very same prevailing scientific theories show that true random chance actually exists on the quantum level, that the universe is not deterministic. Free will is irrelevant for the matter.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Posting on subjects that are beyond the comprehension skills of demi-moderators is considered off topic.

 

[the_Hussar]

Posting on subjects that are beyond the comprehension skills of demi-moderators is considered off topic.

Was this tounge in cheeck funny ... and I missed the sarcasim, or is this really off-topic?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Was this tounge in cheeck funny ... and I missed the sarcasim, or is this really off-topic?

It was tongue-in-cheek but the discussion had gone off topic.

 

[Conch]

And France had a number of compensating advantages, such as better small arms and a larger standing army (the Prussian army of the war was largely conscript, with the officer corps being the only really good part of it). As Iguanaonastick said, Prussian victory was not a sure thing.

This happens when one person who has no clue states something, and other persons, who even have less clue, just copy that and take it as a fact.

Prussian Victory was a sure thing. There was nothing France could have done to prevent it.

1) France still used the tactics Napoleon had developed. They were backwards in any kind of military tactics, while Prussia was far ahead of them.

2) France troops lacked supply and equipment. If you would have read any good source about this war, you would know that the equipment of a certain army corps was often at the other side of the country, so they had to go to war without a good chunk of equipment, or wait for WEEKS to receive the shipment.

3) As backwards as the tactic of the frog eaters was, so were their military leaders. Of course Moltke was good, one of the best of his time in the world. But the Frenchies were warned, they knew what happened in the Prussian-Austrian war only 4 years ago, but were unable to adapt. I might remind you that the French army in WW 2 was called "the best in the world" but still lost to Germany in a matter of days due to having crap leaders. In fact - and everyone with at least some knowledge of warfare will agree with me on that point - the equipment of an army is far from being as important as the leaders.

But, of course, this game is not a historic simulation of Franco-Prussian War. It's sandbox. It's up to the AI if it researches advanced military tactics, and it's a matter of luck if Prussia or France get good leaders, so the outcome of the war will very often be different to the historic event.

 

[unmerged(12921)]

And France had a number of compensating advantages, such as better small arms and a larger standing army (the Prussian army of the war was largely conscript, with the officer corps being the only really good part of it). As Iguanaonastick said, Prussian victory was not a sure thing.

The justification for why German unification should be possible in the game is that the underlying forces that made it eventually happen were present already in 1836. That German unification actually happened doesn't (by itself) dictate a thing. At best, it implies that there should be a possibility of it happening.

My initial post did not concern the variations of history..., it was directed soley towards the "non-variety" I'd observed in my games. France ALWAYS became the #1 power! Other nations had varying results in each game..., but France just blew into the top spot with an aura of inevitability. That seeemed strange to me then, and still does.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

My initial post did not concern the variations of history..., it was directed soley towards the "non-variety" I'd observed in my games. France ALWAYS became the #1 power! Other nations had varying results in each game..., but France just blew into the top spot with an aura of inevitability. That seeemed strange to me then, and still does.

Not an issue in AHD.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

My initial post did not concern the variations of history..., it was directed soley towards the "non-variety" I'd observed in my games. France ALWAYS became the #1 power! Other nations had varying results in each game..., but France just blew into the top spot with an aura of inevitability. That seeemed strange to me then, and still does.

Fair enough. My post was not really specifically directed as your initial post, but more at some of the others that followed. Of course, France shouldn't become top dog all the time. I'd think, given the circumstances in 1836, Britain should probably be likely to remain top dog in most games, like 60% or so. France should maybe in 25% and Germany in 15% (including the likelihood that it forms in the first place). And if Germany actually forms in the first place, it should probably be one of the big players for the rest of the game, rivaling France, but its appearance shouldn't be a sure thing to begin with.