The big marxistic rant thread...

[unmerged(5892)]

Getting very tangled here.

For my 2 cents, I prefer a game that is liberally coloured with historical events. For me, it adds flavour, and links the game to my RL passion - history. The only other title Paradox put out in this vein was also my least favourite. Still, its all personal preference - I'm just registering my disappointment.

Guess I'll wait til a decent mod to come out, which as others have mentioned will be a reasonable chunk of time. No doubt EU3 will then become as enjoyable for me as EU2 AGC-EEP is due to the richness and depth of events and scenarios.

 

[unmerged(63467)]

Originally posted by Belissarius 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.

Just so. But if there is no incentive ever to take risks in managing a country, all player countries will be perfectly run. For example, presented with the choice of a fifteen-unit revolt or a temporary tax cut, I'd take the latter, and I always prioritise stability because in this game the risk of rebellion is not proportionate to reward. More risk (lower stab) = LESS money.

The rulers of Renaissance nations didn't mismanage because they were stupid, they took calculated risks based on their understanding of the world and the culture that they lived in, and this is what we aren't encouraged to do. For example, the incentive structure for a European country encourages players to tolerate all branches of christianity within their borders and make up for this by being intolerant of pagans and muslims because this will minimise the stability loss and stability is so important. I get no sense while playing that powerful forces inside my nation have a vested interest in suppressing heresy, and if there are events that punish you for practicing freedom of worship throughout the game period, they certainly aren't triggering for me. No missionaries? No problem.

I suppose what I'd like to see - again, I'm talking about the feel of the game - is more events, preferably tied to culture, dealing with internal management of my country so that I can feel what sort of life my simulated citizens are leading. Better still, if the events offer genuinely valuable rewards for taking the sorts of stab-reducing choices that renaissance nations took (oppressing religious minorities, focusing on a landlocked nation's internal growth instead of founding colonies abroad, raising controversial taxes, starting a war one might not win), the risk to reward ratio could get back in balance. Because at the moment the only reason I'd ever have low stability would be if I tried to run a blitzkrieg, something I'm not interested in doing.

Final point - internal events never push me towards wars I don't really want to fight. I'd like it if they did; there would be more challenge and more benefit to maintaining an expensive standing army.

 

[Mr. Domino]

Allright, another "historic determinism/straightjacketing vs. dynamic event/flavorless debate"!

I guess my major beef is that all the nations do feel the same, and that events did lead to a level of uniqueness. Yes, yes, Spain shouldn't always form if say Aragorn is vassalized by france or Castille is a republic or Aragorn and Castille are at -200 relationship. But in 1.0 you can have a personal union or vassalize Castille, +200 relations, and still have to manually annex them and take 12+ BB. Call me a marxist but it fundamentally bothers me that forming Spain is just as hard as forming Germany or Italy.

I was aware of the dynamic event system going in, but I thought (and this is probably my fault and not part of some grand deception) that it meant historic events would only trigger if they were rational situations. No wars of religion in a 100% Catholic France. Now however there is no wars of religion period, you merely seem to get a somewhat bland event that either gives you a revolt or lowers tax value if you have a religous minority.

I think dynamic cores/cultures/tech groups hurt flavor as well. Some might think it was unfair that the Ottomans got Orthodox tech group, a con center, and what, 5 cultures essentially for free. But the Ottomans then did feel different than any other muslim nation in the game, and had different abilities. Now the Ottomans have no cores on the mamelukes or hungary, any nation can leapfrog into a higher tech group, ect ect. This makes the mamelukes, say, much more playable but makes the Ottomans much more bland.

 

[MacGregor]

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.

Either you ability or willingness to comprehend is seriously flawed.

I know Johan has a different view. I know he wants more of a game than a simulation. That's fine, I like other things. Our displeasure is one of sadness, not of a lack of understanding. I know why the choices are made. But it does mean losing something we had we no longer have (except in EUII).

And i've said it a thousand times, who wants to wait a year or more for a decent mod? Secondly, even more important than events is country specific AIs (for the major countries). That is not even possible under the new engine.

 

[MacGregor]

Allright, another "historic determinism/straightjacketing vs. dynamic event/flavorless debate"!

That's another example of the language used as a slur, by both sides. No one wants hard coded rigided events. And to me, from a philosophic point of view, it is the dynamic engine that is "Strictly deterministic" since all AI actions are hard codedly determined by external, ahistoric conditions, Marxism as its worse. When the AI had characteristics for major countries which tended to emulate their internal tendancies, irregardless of external factors, at least there was some aknowledgement that forces other than historical circumstance could affect decisions.

 

[MacGregor]

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;

Another attempt to try and portray the majority of the unhappy COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT to make us look like fools. Why this intentional slurring and misrepresentation? I would have expected better from you Peter.

 

[Reveilled]

Another attempt to try and portray the majority of the unhappy COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT to make us look like fools. Why this intentional slurring and misrepresentation? I would have expected better from you Peter.

Indeed. All most of us were ever looking for was the means to add semi-historical progression and historical flavour back into the game. I wouldn't be overjoyed at the prospect of having to wait for a mod to play the game as I really want it, but with the means to produce directed colonization and other country-specific features, and a simple method of producing historical monarchs and leaders, a mod to this effect could probably be put out in a lot less than a year.

As it is, if such a mod ever appears at all, we'll have to wait for modders to find a way to circumvent the game engine, and given that this is a very complicated task for the most basic foundation of a historical mod, I am personally doubtful that such a mod shall ever appear. Certainly, it never appeared for CK, which was a great game (in fact, probably my favourite paradox game after EU2), but not what many of us were hoping was the direction in which EU3 would move. Now, we don't even have the means to steer it back on our own.

 

[unmerged(12921)]

"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.

I really don't object as much as I thought to the "dynamic" nature of the play. With one REALLY BIG exception. If they are going to call it "dynamic history" then the overall constraints of historical reality should still be in place. When the game starts with France, Spain, England, Portugal, China, and a dozen other powers all choosing "Search for the New World" it completely jumps the tracks. NOBODY in 1453 knew there was a "New World" to search for...,and only ONE power was actively out exploring and colonizing at all. The Portuguese were engaged in pushing down the West Coast of Africa searching for a route to the Spice Islands..., and even they weren't looking out into the Atlantic.

The whole idea of a "Search for the New World" came about when the Portuguese were finally successful in getting around the Cape of Good Hope and into the Indian Ocean. That's when the rest of Europe suddenly realized they were at least 50 years behind in the race to these riches and started looking for a "shortcut". Even if as Austria or Poland a player wants to get into colonization, he shouldn't have the ability until someone actually discovers that there ARE places to be colonized out there. The game doesn't just "free form" play..., it "free forms" the historic realities.

Another example that's been around for a long time. As players explore, they come across more primitive states like Creek or Zulu and such. What happens next? Creek and Zulu Merchants suddenly leap into their dugouts and canoes and show up in European CoT's. Completely rediculous..., but it's been around since EUI. The game needs some realistic historical constraints on even "dynamic" play or it becomes absurd within 100 years.

 

[unmerged(514)]

From a point of view of someone who has already "talk the talk" and is now "walking the walk", I am pretty sure something in the direction of AGPEEC is possible. For my personal taste, it can be even better, if we can harness the chaotic nature of the engine. There is just one thing that is sorely missed: some form of controlling each AI.

As Johan seems to be reading this thread, I beg him to consider some form of control, even if not as detailed as we had in EU2.

 

[unmerged(19063)]

From a point of view of someone who has already "talk the talk" and is now "walking the walk", I am pretty sure something in the direction of AGPEEC is possible.

I doubt it. CK never developed one.

 

[coreymas]

You make my point exactly. People who know a whole ton about the period (like you say you do) are happy. But for someone like me who DIDN'T play EUII... and DOESN'T know the history exactly, we are left out in the cold a bit.

I'm not saying I want scripted history (X Monarch at Y Date), I'm saying I want the background information of reality to go WITH the dynamic structure of the game.

I think that you are missing the point that Johan and Paradox were trying to make with the new system in EU3.

First off you do get the historical context when you first start the game.

Since you can select your start date for anytime between 1453 and 1792 you actually can plunk yourself down at any moment in history and do many what if scenarios from that point on.

Everyone knows that once you started any of the Paradox titles that from that point on History was pretty much out the window. Having these Historical scripts just made these games wierd and also lead to many exploits (knowing when a great monarch was coming and planning wars for that time) is a perfect example of this.

I am sure that a historical version will come out eventually. I for one actually applaud Paradox for not falling into the same straightjacket of historical scripted events.

Corey

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Another attempt to try and portray the majority of the unhappy COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT to make us look like fools. Why this intentional slurring and misrepresentation? I would have expected better from you Peter.

It is not a portrayal of all of those who disagree with me, nor a majority, it is a portrayal of a subgroup of those who disagree with me, with whom I have some sympathy.

Specifically, my post regarded the original post, something you perhaps missed? I would have expected better from you, MacGregor, except that I've noticed your posting style deteoriating as this silly pro/anti this/that debate has drawn out over the last few weeks - and you are not alone. It is getting more and more unpleasant to read these forums.


So, to clarify...

I don't have sympathy with everybody, but that particular subgroup of "absurdly long shots we want to see/don't see" I have, since it is one I'm rather close to and which views I somewhat share - and it is a group in which I (perhaps wrongly) consider the OP to be with his Netherlands & Prussia vs Saxony & Champa examples.


But your personal opinion is....

It is my personal opinion that history, at least the interesting parts of it (i.e removing all the farming, fishing, and generations of peasants toiling in the sweat of their feet or whatever), is made up of a collection of absurdly long shots that happened to be those that succeeded, and that trends are generally something obvious only in retrospect once you need to fill in something interesting in the dull spots or justify something to your contemporaries - but that this, my view, is irrelevant when creating a game engine as, while you can create a game engine supporting this POV, you can also create one based on many other views, so what's important to me is to have a game engine that does whatever view it tries to represent justice.


On the value of thick skin....

If you want to see it as a grand insult and misrepresentation of everybody who has a different view than I where EU3 is concerned feel free to do so, but nothing such was stated or implied in the post, nor was it intended.

Please grow a slightly thicker skin - I know it is a hard fight fought in multiple threads, but I'm not your enemy. Mostly, I don't care for any of the various camps except my own, in which I'd support pink flying Elephants if it made the game play funnier, since what I want to do is to have fun and I assume that the same is the case for everybody else with what they consider fun, which is most likely considerably different from my opinion. I also expect many others to find various of my opinions highly insightful, amusing, insane, or insulting. To use some of the nicer words.


On pointless classification which does naught but amuse...

The whole attempt at dividing the playing population in two camps "pro-history/anti-history" or "pro-context/anti-context" or what have you (and no intended association between orders is intended) is, to me, vastly amusing as well as a complete waste of time. None of us are that simple to categorize, we all have different playing styles and likes, and most of us know damn well what they are and why they won't fit in any arbitrary classification drawn up by somebody else primarily to support whatever view is being presented by doing the "My group, which is the sensible guys" vs "!My group, which all missed my point".... As far as I'm concerned, my group is ME and everybody else can have whatever point they want to, some of them amusing to me, some of them not, without that in any ways affecting their validity or importance to the ones who have the point.


On finishing words...

I'm the joker without compare, the gamer's gamer whom perils dare, the glint in the eye of the sage, the force that broke the cage, the laugh of the mighty, the mind so flighty - and as far as looking like fools, as you complained about, none of you can match my determined efforts.

So there.

 

[MacGregor]

It is not a portrayal of all of those who disagree with me, nor a majority, it is a portrayal of a subgroup of those who disagree with me, with whom I have some sympathy.

Specifically, my post regarded the original post, something you perhaps missed? I would have expected better from you, MacGregor, except that I've noticed your posting style deteoriating as this silly pro/anti this/that debate has drawn out over the last few weeks - and you are not alone. It is getting more and more unpleasant to read these forums.


So, to clarify...

I don't have sympathy with everybody, but that particular subgroup of "absurdly long shots we want to see/don't see" I have, since it is one I'm rather close to and which views I somewhat share - and it is a group in which I (perhaps wrongly) consider the OP to be with his Netherlands & Prussia vs Saxony & Champa examples.


But your personal opinion is....

It is my personal opinion that history, at least the interesting parts of it (i.e removing all the farming, fishing, and generations of peasants toiling in the sweat of their feet or whatever), is made up of a collection of absurdly long shots that happened to be those that succeeded, and that trends are generally something obvious only in retrospect once you need to fill in something interesting in the dull spots or justify something to your contemporaries - but that this, my view, is irrelevant when creating a game engine as, while you can create a game engine supporting this POV, you can also create one based on many other views, so what's important to me is to have a game engine that does whatever view it tries to represent justice.


On the value of thick skin....

If you want to see it as a grand insult and misrepresentation of everybody who has a different view than I where EU3 is concerned feel free to do so, but nothing such was stated or implied in the post, nor was it intended.

Please grow a slightly thicker skin - I know it is a hard fight fought in multiple threads, but I'm not your enemy. Mostly, I don't care for any of the various camps except my own, in which I'd support pink flying Elephants if it made the game play funnier, since what I want to do is to have fun and I assume that the same is the case for everybody else with what they consider fun, which is most likely considerably different from my opinion. I also expect many others to find various of my opinions highly insightful, amusing, insane, or insulting. To use some of the nicer words.


On pointless classification which does naught but amuse...

The whole attempt at dividing the playing population in two camps "pro-history/anti-history" or "pro-context/anti-context" or what have you (and no intended association between orders is intended) is, to me, vastly amusing as well as a complete waste of time. None of us are that simple to categorize, we all have different playing styles and likes, and most of us know damn well what they are and why they won't fit in any arbitrary classification drawn up by somebody else primarily to support whatever view is being presented by doing the "My group, which is the sensible guys" vs "!My group, which all missed my point".... As far as I'm concerned, my group is ME and everybody else can have whatever point they want to, some of them amusing to me, some of them not, without that in any ways affecting their validity or importance to the ones who have the point.


On finishing words...

I'm the joker without compare, the gamer's gamer whom perils dare, the glint in the eye of the sage, the force that broke the cage, the laugh of the mighty, the mind so flighty - and as far as looking like fools, as you complained about, none of you can match my determined efforts.

So there.

I'm duly chastised. I have nothing more to add.

 

[coreymas]

It is the classic AHistoric society debate that went on in the HOI2 forum way back when HOI2 first came out.

Everyone was being classified as pro-Ahistoric or pro-Historic.

I never fell into that trap. Besides i classify myself a history buff and one who likes what if scenarios. I am lucky that EU3 supports both these concepts..

Corey

 

[Garbon]

I think the problem as has been said many times, elsewhere, isn't that history needs to unfold as it did (the Hapsburg Empire and the political rush to gobble of Italy)...but rather that the historical geopolitical positions of nations are non-existant. One doesn't need gamey mechanics or "straight-jacketing AIs" to make it impossible for Austria to colonize the Eastern Seaboard of America (as one could in eu2 by giving a non-colonial AI) but the game should be setup in some way that Austria would have the pressures on it via local politics and its surrounding neighbors that would make colonizing a costly and dangerous route to take. After all, monarchs did have choices to make and could have made the risky venture to colonize as a mostly land-locked power, but the "risk" part of that venture should exist. As it stands, it sounds like almost every nation (well, European nation ) can have its cake and eat it too.

 

[unmerged(58557)]

I'm a little bothered by the fact that this thread that was NOT about historical vs. ahistoric / dynamic vs. static has been jacked by that arguement, and a Moderator has felt it necessary to alter the title of the thread.

 

[MacGregor]

I'm a little bothered by the fact that this thread that was NOT about historical vs. ahistoric / dynamic vs. static has been jacked by that arguement, and a Moderator has felt it necessary to alter the title of the thread.

And the title alteration shows a definitive bias (and is philosophically in error). Oppps, I said I was through here, sorry.

 

[alpreb]

Honestly the event system did not really give historical knowlegde besides of the major powers.
It was the description when choosing a country that gave the info or "feel" if you put it to that.
EUII gave an okay description on how all nations fared historically which I think was very important to the game.
It said precisely how good YOU had to be to beat history. Like Denmark winning or getting status quo vs. Sweden or as Sweden you had to conquer Scandinavia and the Baltic just to surpass Swedish height.
Like Ottomans, they are an easy nation to play, but if you decide to play historical you are facing countless of war against a lot of different enemies just to "do it historical", then going over that was really a feat in itself.
Also that Mamelucks lose horrible vs Ottomans isn't that logical looking at the size of the empires. But learning that Mameluck will get crushed by Ottomans, gives you a CB to prevent history when playing Mameluck.

EUII wasn't historical. Prussia never created (95% chance that early Prussia dissapeared) and I would give it 10% for Netherlands creation unless I intervened.

 

[lordy80011]

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.

You definitely aren't speaking for me. I've never played the AGCEEP, and I find the lack of events in EU3 to be startling compared to EU2. True, for minor nations in EU2, there were few events, but anyone playing Spain, France, Russia, England, the Ottomans, etc. would certainly disagree with the analysis that there were "little to no events" in EU2.

 

[Belissarius]

Either you ability or willingness to comprehend is seriously flawed.

I know Johan has a different view. I know he wants more of a game than a simulation. That's fine, I like other things. Our displeasure is one of sadness, not of a lack of understanding. I know why the choices are made. But it does mean losing something we had we no longer have (except in EUII).

And i've said it a thousand times, who wants to wait a year or more for a decent mod? Secondly, even more important than events is country specific AIs (for the major countries). That is not even possible under the new engine.

Then stop the constant lament. You are sad we get it. So move on and go to the EU2 forums and make EU2 the best game you can possibly make it.

As far as "But it does mean losing something we had we no longer have (except in EUII)" how can you no longer have something if you still have it? EU3 was NEVER intended to be EU2.5 or EU2 plus so you never lost it in the regard either.

You say you understand why the game is the way it is and you make it clear you don't want to wait a year until the game is modded, so why are you here? I'm being serious here. You don't need to "warn" other like minded people because all the information about what EU3 is is available and up front on these boards.