The big marxistic rant thread...

[unmerged(42223)]

All nations are set on more or less equal footing, except for Chirstian and "lucky" nations. They game keeps itself historical up to the point at which you start it, and then it goes completely ahistorical. And as I feared, it seems they left the realism up to the modders, and made half a game for the players to fix.

I guess I really do not understand this thinking or viewpoint. When you have a historical realism without free choice you are tied to a straight jacket and are really watching a movie. Historical realism is for the purpose of set and setting. A feel of being there and then you enter to do within believable limits or game constraints that follow a fair logic for AI and human alike.

Free choice in the set and setting of being there will alway take you down a different path game to game. How can this not be fun?

Gosh, I've spent two years getting that to work in my mod. Whatever else it is, it is fun and challenging and no two games come up the same.

Give me game experience where the same thing occurs just because it is 'christened historical' and in two or three games er, watching this movie and I am done. Well then there is the near endless arguing as to how close it really was to historical and I then can pull out some old dusty history books and bat someone on the head with them.

I do not even like watching movies that go in directions I do not appreciate and will turn them off mid-way and go play a game sporting 'free choice' instead.

Am I missing something here? There will be no doubt be 50 modded versions of EU3 inside two years. What better bargain can that be?

Just wondering...

 

[Belissarius]

/snip
"Scripted history" or "deterministic history" are slurs that the pro "dynamic system" people like to throw around. They know we are right, so they try to muddy the water by misrepresenting what we want.

So Johan is making slurs about your group? Or is it that he simply has a vision of the game that you don't share? A vision that he has been very clear about for a long, long, long, time. Perhaps you remember this quote by Johan "This is a game not a historical simulation." You can try to stop or change this trend but i think its about as useful as spitting in the wind.

Most events that are in EU2 can be duplicated with EU3's current event system. So when you say there are no historical events we have to think that either you don't know what you are talking about OR you are trying to "muddy the water" yourself.

I think the funniest thing about the "otherside" is that they have the most moddable game that paradox has ever made and they complain its not good enough. I get the feeling that they will never be happy until they play a hands off game as a HRE one province minor and get a "historical" result at least 51% of the time if not 85% of the time.

 

[themadtupper]

remind me again..

What exactly was the difference between playing Switzerland and Bavaria in eu2? (And that is not present in eu3?)

I don't think the issue at hand is the difference between Bavaria and Switzerland, but rather the difference between, say, Russia and the Golden Horde.

As it was in EU2, no matter how powerful you became as Golden Horde, you knew you were still going to be in for a ride because you'd be facing revolts all the time. In EU3, I've found that once you get past a certain point where your economy and military are in good shape, you're free and easy because the dynamic event system means that you have as much chance as anyone else to inherit some great territory, or get hit by crippling revolts.

I understand that the game is not meant to be a historical simulation, and I appreciate that, but the dynamic event system makes the game so abstract, that it may as well not be set in Renaissance Europe. Once the first major inheritance happens, all bets are off.

This abstraction is exacerbated by the fact that, although there are a number of countries that one can form by taking certain provinces, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to form Italy, rather than remain as Tuscany, or to become Persia, rather than keep going as Qara Koyunlu. Again, it leads to situations that are so ahistorical, that the game might as well be set on another planet.

I think people were unhappy in EU2 that events like the Ottoman takeover of the Mamlukes made the Ottomans easy mode in a deterministic way. But with dynamic events, I think its actually harder to set yourself up for a challenge, because every country has the potential to be EU2's Austria, and no country is destined for a series of really bad events, or given a neighbor who will certainly be powerful.

It's so obvious that innumerable hours have been spent by Paradox painstakingly researching the historical context of the EU timeframe in order to make a game that looks and feels appropriate. The EU2 event system, in my opinion, was a great way to guide the game engine toward something that felt historical and could lead to perfectly historical outcomes, while at the same time leaving lots of room for following an alternative history. In EU2 it was unusual, but meaningful if, for example, Castille didn't form Spain, or if the OE didnt move its capital to Constantinople. In EU3, there's nothing interesting about the unusual, its more like, "oh well, Tyrone just inherited Sweden again"

I'm enjoying EU3, I love some of the new features, and I totally appreciate what another poster said about being used to EU2 and needing to adjust to the new engine. Having said that, I'm not yet convinced that EU3 moved the EU family closer to the perfect balance between the factual historical record and the very fun aspect of sometimes not doing what was historical.

 

[knul]

I don't think the issue at hand is the difference between Bavaria and Switzerland, but rather the difference between, say, Russia and the Golden Horde.

I think the point Johan is making is that EU2 was as light on historical events as EU3. Most nations in EU2 had little to no events. The reason that many people find that EU3 has so little events is that they compare it with mods like AGCEEP.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

What exactly was the difference between playing Switzerland and Bavaria in eu2? (And that is not present in eu3?)

In EU2, there were actually fairly significant differences in gameplay and choices - Switzerland's provinces would definitely turn reformed, whereas Bavaria wouldn't. Bavaria also got a few events. This meant that if I wanted to play a middling Reformed or Protestant Central European power, I would start a game as Switzerland, and if I wanted a middling Catholic German country, I'd play as Bavaria. Now, of course EU3 gives you flexibility instead, and allows you to transform any German country along a desired route, but it does lose a bit of "historical immersion" because of it.

They were also dealing with major neighbours (eg. France and Austria) who were programmed to develop along a certain historic trajectory which you needed to deal with. This all meant that there was a definite sense of playing in a familiar historical environment, which isn't present in EU3.

EDIT: Also, as far as the events in EU1 go, even though they were few in number, they did big and important things, making it almost certain that Holland formed, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation happened on a large scale, and Spain and Portugal got a head start in colonization. Although there weren't many, they provided quite important historical "anchors" around which the game could develop (while still allowing it to go ahistorical in all other respects) - something which I personally feel EU3 could really do with.

 

[unmerged(42223)]

Again, it leads to situations that are so ahistorical, that the game might as well be set on another planet.

...the very fun aspect of sometimes not doing what was historical.

Wow, with this and what McGregor said now seeing these threads co-mingled. I will not bother trying to see eye to eye or any other body part.

What's wrong with playing on another planet? Gosh, I would pay 50 dollars more + just to get a moddable map editor for HOI2 1.3.

...very fun is 'sometimes' not doing what was historical?!!

What could be so bloody precious about human Earth history that changing it would not be at least more interesting if not 'better'?

 

[unmerged(25273)]

historical course of events versus experience of ruling

To throw in my pennies worth:
This is a game - not a history book. The primary goal is to be fun to play not to learn about history (There are books and documentary films about that)
In all claims about the lack of historical correctness I miss the point that Hertog Jan made further up: it simply is not historical to sit down and study your country, monarch and leaders files to expand your empire according to hardcoded destiny. Austrian kings in the 15th century did not lean back and say I need not bother about Bohemia and Hungary because I will simply inherit them next century. No monarch or leader has ever enjoyed such
knowledge about the future. To the same degree that the course of real history as it happened had been included in EU2 it has made the experience of ruling a country unhistorical.
EU3 does not give you much ahead knowledge (you still inevitably know what buildings, units and governments become available with what tech) but throws you back at your present game situation to form your strategies.
EU3 gives you more of an experience of ruling a country in those centuries than EU2 but is admittedly not as good a substitute for a history book. As a game EU3 is far more fun to play however imho.

 

[themadtupper]

I think the point Johan is making is that EU2 was as light on historical events as EU3. Most nations in EU2 had little to no events. The reason that many people find that EU3 has so little events is that they compare it with mods like AGCEEP.

I only really played vanilla, so I can't speak to AGCEEP, but my point still stands, i think.

The dynamism of the events mean that the epochal struggles that defined the EU timeframe never happen. The Reformation has never been more than a whimper in any of my games thus far. There is no concern about dealing with a big Austria all over Europe because they probably wont get very big (ar at least have as good a chance of it as anyone else). Ditto with France, because Burgundy is actually strong enough to hold them off, and then doesn't go away. Portugal and Castille begin the race for colonization, but one very quickly will find Teutonic Knight colonies in the Caribbean and Ragusan outposts in Africa.

My point is not that every single country needs to have an event file as long as France's or OE's, but rather that the alternative history aspect should come, in some part, with trying to deal with major historical events in an alternative way. Without some actual historical events happening throughout the game, the game may as well be Mars Universalis, because nothing that happens is particuarly specific to the scope of the game.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

So Johan is making slurs about your group? Or is it that he simply has a vision of the game that you don't share? A vision that he has been very clear about for a long, long, long, time. Perhaps you remember this quote by Johan "This is a game not a historical simulation." You can try to stop or change this trend but i think its about as useful as spitting in the wind.

I don't think this forced division into groups really helps or is particularly accurate: Paradox games are marketed not as a "historical simulation" but as a "game in a historical setting." Now, the differences are arising because people have different expectations about what a "historical setting" implies: for some people, mock-period music and a few historical names a la Medieval: Total War is enough; for others this means having a rough historical setup at a starting date and then have things develop in a freeform manner; others expect things to develop in a historically plausible, but not neccessarily determinstic manner; and some want exact period detail to come up on a clockwork basis.

These are all really different points on a spectrum, the last two of which the current build of EU3 doesn't really satisfy. Now of course it can all be modded, but remember that most Paradox modders have tended to come from the more historically orientated end, and consciously alienating them through confrontational language doesn't really seem to be a good way to go.

 

[themadtupper]

What's wrong with playing on another planet?

Nothing wrong, it just seems to me that that's a different game.

...very fun is 'sometimes' not doing what was historical?!!

What could be so bloody precious about human Earth history that changing it would not be at least more interesting if not 'better'?

1) I think you're taking what I said a little out of context.

2) I'm sorry you're so offended by history, all I'm saying is that there needs to be a balance between the historic and ahistoric.

 

[unmerged(42223)]

...the game may as well be Mars Universalis, because nothing that happens is particuarly specific to the scope of the game.

Now we are getting somewhere...

I propose taking all best that passed before and drum up a complete true Universalis/HOI modding game engine/editor maps and all and ONLY license it to Modders for $1000 each. (I'll pre-buy one)

Then we will sell our mods as 'sub-licensed' by Paradox and split the profits.

Everyone will be happy,

Everyone will get filthy rich...

 

[Johan]

As it was in EU2, no matter how powerful you became as Golden Horde, you knew you were still going to be in for a ride because you'd be facing revolts all the time.

Huh?

The golden horde did not face revolts endlessly...

They had ONE easily avoidable event that gives +10 RR for 10 years...

#####Golden Horde Major Events#####
###By Joakim 'Greven' Bergqwist####
###################################

#The Disintegration of the Golden Horde#
event = {

	id = 3689
	random = no
	country = STE
	name = "EVENTNAME3689"
	desc = "EVENTHIST3689"
	style = 1

	date = { day = 1 month = october year = 1447 }
	offset = 300

	action_a ={
		name = "ACTIONNAME3689A"			#Subjugate Non-Mongols Harshly#
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 120 value = 10 }
		command = { type = revolt which = 446 } # Kazan
		command = { type = revolt which = 446 }
		command = { type = revolt which = 446 }
		command = { type = revolt which = 447 } # Tambow
		command = { type = revolt which = 447 }
		command = { type = revolt which = 463 } # Crimea
		command = { type = revolt which = 463 }
		command = { type = revolt which = 466 } # Azow
		command = { type = revolt which = 466 }
		command = { type = revolt which = 457 } # Astrakhan
		command = { type = revolt which = 457 }
		command = { type = stability value = -6 }
		command = { type = vp  value = 300 }
	}
	action_b ={
		name = "ACTIONNAME3689B"			#Buy the Non-Mongols off#		
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 120 value = 3 }
		command = { type = treasury value = -1500 }
		command = { type = inflation value = 15 }
		command = { type = stability value = -4 }
	}
}

 

[unmerged(42223)]

Nothing wrong, it just seems to me that that's a different game.



1) I think you're taking what I said a little out of context.

2) I'm sorry you're so offended by history, all I'm saying is that there needs to be a balance between the historic and ahistoric.

Well it is true I am, however it is not really the issue as I see it. It is having fun game after game. And for some of us, having fun 'making games'. And if I must make a game that adheres doggedly to history I would bugger off on the idea rather quickly, not because of my feelings for or against history per se, but because of the creative 'restrictions'.

 

[KINGBEN]

If you want more historical events then buy EU2. Long before EU3 came out Paradox made it clear the game wouldn't have events like EU2.

 

[unmerged(63467)]

Aren't there two separate points being addressed here?

The first is whether or not there should be determinstic nation-specific historical events. I believe that we are all in agreement that there should not be and that the EU3 gameplay system is in principle far superior to that in EU2. As a game, it's massively more fun.

The second is about the feel of the game. Johan's example of Bavaria and Switzerland is a very good one. Because we know about the historical differences between these two countries, in a more deterministic game where Switzerland goes Calvinist and Bavaria remains Catholic, both nations have an intangible feeling of 'rightness' that is absent when either of them can theoretically become protestant, remain catholic or whatever based on semi-random factors: the engine doesn't take into account the cultural factors that made one Calvinist and the other Catholic. Nor can it easily take into account the factors that made the Swiss less expansionist than, say, the Ottomans except by limiting the former's manpower and changing its starting sliders (which leads to switzerland's constant and early annexation in each game I have played to date).

So the 'problem' - such as it is - isn't that the world evolves ahistorically. We want it to do so! The problem is that there is limited context for this evolution, so we can't easily grasp what the world around us is like, how it feels, etc. I strongly feel that the solution is to tie more 'flavoured' dynamic events into specific culture groups, as unlike the specific nations, these are set and don't change much during the game period.

Look, I think all or at least most of us who have raised this and similar points really like this game, as we have liked each of its predecessors and spin-offs. If we are pointing out those things in it we think could be improved, then so long as we don't go berserk and start frothing at the mouth, we're doing something constructive, surely?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I must admit that I find it vaguely amusing when a person can, in the same post, BOTH bemoan the fact that the Netherlands is unlikely to form and that Prussia will seldom become a great power dominating its region AND bemoan the fact that other minors (e.g. Saxony or Champa) can "unhistorically and unrealistically" become great powers dominating their region.

I am sympathetic to the "what I really like is a game that feels like "real history" by reproducing the same collection of absurdly long shots, that resulted in what is recognized as "real history" view; it is a question about how you feel and what you have fun with, and what could be more subjective than that? ...but some of the examples of what is "historically plausible" and what is not (and hence, most often, what people want to see in the game or don't want to see in the game) makes for extremely funny reading.

A huge number of the events and trends in our history that had great lasting impact on the shape and destiny of nations would fall squarely into the "historically implausible, must be a bug, time to whine in the bug report or GD forum" category if one evaluated it based on merits in the context it happened in in our history the same way as these "alternate developments in the game world" are evaluated.

 

[unmerged(46195)]

The problem I have with just about any event except very vague ones is that by simply playing the player has altered the course of history.

Say you take the throne as Burgundy and start with Charles the Bold, you defeat the Swiss and survive to stabilize his realm. Meanwhile other nations slavishly follow events; perhaps an event for Louis XI to accept or decline the marriage of Charles' daughter, but due to the low AI chance the kingdom of Burgundy, more often than not inherited by Austria, despite the protests of a still living Charles. Or you can have a nation exist, and possibly conquering Europe (or at least of forming Lotharingia), that has over three hundred years of no events.

In a much smaller scope of history it is much easier to write specific historical events for a game, and HOI plays itself very well into this though it can lead to a bewildering number of variations for how an event can play out (surrender of Japan comes to mind).

 

[Belissarius]

I don't think this forced division into groups really helps or is particularly accurate: Paradox games are marketed not as a "historical simulation" but as a "game in a historical setting." Now, the differences are arising because people have different expectations about what a "historical setting" implies: for some people, mock-period music and a few historical names a la Medieval: Total War is enough; for others this means having a rough historical setup at a starting date and then have things develop in a freeform manner; others expect things to develop in a historically plausible, but not neccessarily determinstic manner; and some want exact period detail to come up on a clockwork basis.

These are all really different points on a spectrum, the last two of which the current build of EU3 doesn't really satisfy. Now of course it can all be modded, but remember that most Paradox modders have tended to come from the more historically orientated end, and consciously alienating them through confrontational language doesn't really seem to be a good way to go.

I'll grant you all those points in the first paragraph BUT Johan has stated CLEARLY and continually that the direction HE was taking was what EU3 is currently. Is it perfect? does the current event system model everything that happen historicly? No. Do most of the historical events in EU2 have EU3 counter parts? Yes.

I think that because people are not seeing their well managed player run countries run into the problems that their countries ran into historically they chime in that there are no historical events. If you treat teh lowlands well, will the light hand (Ie lower taxes when you get problems) you will dodge the dutch revolts. If you treat your religious minority well you will side step Frances wars of religion.

The really bad events are NOT triggered by players because they know damn well not to do these things because of the rather nasty concequences. So whats more historicaly plausable when playing france?

1) you get the war of religion no matter if you convert or treat well your religious minority?

2) You never get a religious internal war because you have treated yourreligious minorities well and have a fairly innovated nation?

Personally I say number 2, others feel that France's religious strif is too complex to "solve" and not have it happen. Still others will argue that i'm putting a false comparison together. But I think its a far more telling comparison. Players tend to manager their nations in teh best possible way and thus do not trigger really bad events but does that mean the events are not in the game? or that the current system is flawed? I think not.

Why should events trigger? because they happened in history or because the current game's situation warrents them too? This is the heart of the debate and Johan has chosen the dynamic system. I think it makes for a better game. People will disagree but it should not have come as a surprise that Eu3 is like this. Johan was perfectly up front and clear on the direction he wanted. If EU3 went in the opposite direcction and became more scripted and more like history i would likely have waited to see the game in the bargin bin before i bought it. There was no way to please both camps so Johan went with what he wanted a rather intelligent approach as if he choose a direction he didn't want the game to go in then we would not be as dedicated to the game as he is. Too many people are bitter because they want the game to be how they want it. Its fine to want the game to be how you desire it but its not johan's fault that he wants something different. Paradox isnt wrong in its choices in direction with EU3 it simply made a choice some people do not like. It was impossible for paradox to please every person who loved/loves EU2.

 

[ComradeOm]

I take exception to the idea that this is a "marxistic rant" thread. I think I speak for all Paradox Marxists, ie me, when I say that we fully applaud the decision to turn from a deterministic version of history (one in which the Hand of God/Johan was clearly visible) and adapt a model in which the course of history is dependent on social, economic and technological change.

 

[Cagliostro]

I take exception to the idea that this is a "marxistic rant" thread. I think I speak for all Paradox Marxists, ie me, when I say that we fully applaud the decision to turn from a deterministic version of history (one in which the Hand of God/Johan was clearly visible) and adapt a model in which the course of history is dependent on social, economic and technological change.

I was also going to say "hey, this isn't Marxistic!" I think he's pointing at the Marxist belief that history is a series of inevitable trends. But even Marxists don't believe that every actual historical occurrence is a matter of the general scheme of things...

On a more pertinent topic, I personally like the EU3 model a lot better than the EU2 model. There are still a few huge problems in the representation, but I like the idea of cause and event. Huge empires did suffer huge problems - Russia and China are particularly good examples - and it wasn't because it was called "Russia" or "China". The game at least makes a decent stab at trying to make an unpredictable model of history with generic scripted causes.

The real problems in the model aren't with the model, but implementation. The HRE was ruled by Austria because it was traditional (it had already been the HRE), it was nearby, and it was powerful. The small states in the HRE weren't aggressively eaten by everyone because everyone knew that that would bring the wrath of larger powers upon them. Burgundy wasn't sturdy because it wasn't contiguous, and because the Netherlands wasn't exactly first priority in the kingdom.

These problems can be fixed by modifications in the structure, like an HRE bidding system that takes locality and might into account, an AI that cares about its BB, and somewhat greater instability for severed realms. It won't, convincingly, be fixed by hardcoding Austria as the HRE, forcing nations to release HRE states, or making Burgundy get inherited automatically.