The big marxistic rant thread...

[MacGregor]

AH! So the "lack of historical flavor" that is being perceived is not in the player's nation but in the opponents, then?

Some of us have been saying that for two weeks, or something very similar. Yes, finally, someone has caught on.

 

[unmerged(514)]

AH! So the "lack of historical flavor" that is being perceived is not in the player's nation but in the opponents, then?

LOL!

Man, I spent myself argueing on the same side as yourself. I too was crudely accused of wanting a history book instead of a game. :rofl:


My counsel is: Mod the game. It can be modded and in fact each mod will make it more historically plausible.

 

[unmerged(514)]

Some of us have been saying that for two weeks, or something very similar. Yes, finally, someone has caught on.

This is so funny!!!!

I was one of the stronger voices saying that...

 

[AdmiralNelson]

Some of us have been saying that for two weeks, or something very similar. Yes, finally, someone has caught on.

The statements "playing as England and playing as Muscowy feel the same" and "fighting the Ottomans is the same as fighting the Poles" are not the same and, because they are not the same, they do not process in my brain the same way. Ubik's post just happened to be something I understood, either in the way it was written or the content therein.

It's a totally different animal to tackle the idea that the player doesn't get a feeling of historicity in his nation than the player not receiving a feeling of historicity in his opponents' nations.

Check out Stonewall's "Historical Realism Project." It looks to improve the historicity of your opponents.

 

[MacGregor]

The statements "playing as England and playing as Muscowy feel the same" and "fighting the Ottomans is the same as fighting the Poles" are not the same and, because they are not the same, they do not process in my brain the same way. Ubik's post just happened to be something I understood, either in the way it was written or the content therein.

It's a totally different animal to tackle the idea that the player doesn't get a feeling of historicity in his nation than the player not receiving a feeling of historicity in his opponents' nations.

Check out Stonewall's "Historical Realism Mod" (something like that). It looks to improve the historicity of your opponents.

Well, I'm sure there has been some impercision of language (and a lot of out right inability to read and understand common English), but several of us have always said something along these lines (I've said it at least twice myself) "If I'm playing Russian, I want to play against a France that acts PLAUSIBLY like France, a Spain that acts "PLAUSIBLY" like Spain did and an England that acts PLAUSIBLY like England. No one wants a repeat for history. But I for sure don't want countries that all act alike given the same situation. There should be some national tendancies for the Big Boys (don't worry as much about the minors).

Somehow that gets perverted into "historical determinism" every time; something it most definitely is not. The argument now isn't about what is best for the game, we know what the game is and how it's not going to change (there will not be individual country AIs, the most important element missing in my mind) but in how dismissive some people are getting about dissenters. I'm starting to feel like a Quaker in 1650s Virginia.

 

[lordy80011]

You are correct but it begs the question why does he stay? Is it just to complain and try to make anyone else miserable because the game isnt what he wants? He doesnt want to mod or wait for a mod. The game isnt going to change for all his complaints. Is he here just to state his opinion over and over and over again? i was serious in my question why does he stay what does he hope will happen?

Well, perhaps he feels -- and with good reason -- that his input will help to influence future Paradox projects in a manner that is more to his liking. This seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate goal.

In any event, I do not perceive his critique of the game to be an attempt to make others miserable, or merely to complain. And as for stating opinions over and over again, I would say that there are many individuals on these forums who are guilty of that "crime", and many of them are individuals with very high post counts.

The question of mods. Those who have the time and patience to mod are to be commended.

However, I wonder if MacGregor may be in the same boat that I am. I am a family man with a full time job, children, spouse, and a home to maintain. In addition to this I am currently in pursuit of a second university degree. I find that balancing my time and giving proper attention to each of the important parts of my life leaves me with an hour or so per day to take time from my schedule to engage in purely entertainment oriented activities -- such as reading and posting on these boards, playing a game, or doing some leisure reading.

I do not have the interest or inclination to mod at this time in my life. My personal preference to buy a game that is what I want it to be out of the box (a dozen or so patches not withstanding). I understand that there is probably never going to be a game released that is precisely "what I want", but I also feel quite comfortable in expressing my desires in such a forum as this because I know that Paradox's team read these forums and are listening to us and what we would like to see in future games (to a certain extent, at least ).

Do I miss the historical events? Yes. Do I agree with those who note that the historical events meant playing a waiting game in order to get certain events, or avoid others and that the new system makes for a better game? Yes -- absolutely! I also feel that it would be nice if, when playing as France, my events had a bit of flavor that made me feel that I was playing *France* (even if in an alternate universe) as opposed to "Blue Nation #5".

In any event -- I do not get the impression that MacGregor is simply trying to be disagreeable, and I tell you that I myself and certainly not trying to be disagreeable. I am merely trying to express my personal point of view regarding this game. It's a great game, and I appreciate the opportunity to give my feedback on these forums, where I know that there is at least a chance that Paradox will see them.

 

[minority]

Well, I'm sure there has been some impercision of language (and a lot of out right inability to read and understand common English), but several of us have always said something along these lines (I've said it at least twice myself) "If I'm playing Russian, I want to play against a France that acts PLAUSIBLY like France, a Spain that acts "PLAUSIBLY" like Spain did and an England that acts PLAUSIBLY like England. No one wants a repeat for history. But I for sure don't want countries that all act alike given the same situation. There should be some national tendancies for the Big Boys (don't worry as much about the minors).

Somehow that gets perverted into "historical determinism" every time; something it most definitely is not. The argument now isn't about what is best for the game, we know what the game is and how it's not going to change (there will not be individual country AIs, the most important element missing in my mind) but in how dismissive some people are getting about dissenters. I'm starting to feel like a Quaker in 1650s Virginia.

And then we get into an argument of whether the actions of the countries in the game are plausible or not, which no one can win because no one can prove plausibility conclusively.

So it's very subjective, and you may think it's implausible, while others may think otherwise, and no one has the ability to prove either way, because it's all hypothetical. Even if there are implausible outcomes we can agree on, it can be overcomed with mods IMHO.

What irks me is that all sides think that they are supremely correct, and that they're arguments are conclusive. I beg to differ.

cheers

PS: What I'm saying is, while I agree that sometimes the outcomes are implausible, I think many people who complain are taking a very high-handed position in assuming their correct in saying that the game is all out implausible.

Unless someone can quantify plausibility, I hope those persons can refrain from a superior attitude.

The game has immense potential to be modded, even for creating better historical context, or even for those who crave historical determinism, if tehre are any.

Year specific events, for example, can be done with time based modifiers and flags to kill an event. Changing monarchs? Undoable, but there is a back route: nullifying the effects of good monarchs.

 

[unmerged(49372)]

Well, I'm sure there has been some impercision of language (and a lot of out right inability to read and understand common English), but several of us have always said something along these lines (I've said it at least twice myself) "If I'm playing Russian, I want to play against a France that acts PLAUSIBLY like France, a Spain that acts "PLAUSIBLY" like Spain did and an England that acts PLAUSIBLY like England. No one wants a repeat for history. But I for sure don't want countries that all act alike given the same situation. There should be some national tendancies for the Big Boys (don't worry as much about the minors).

Somehow that gets perverted into "historical determinism" every time; something it most definitely is not. The argument now isn't about what is best for the game, we know what the game is and how it's not going to change (there will not be individual country AIs, the most important element missing in my mind) but in how dismissive some people are getting about dissenters. I'm starting to feel like a Quaker in 1650s Virginia.

Well, it makes a lot more sense when you put it that way...I think everyone can agree that there are some problems with AI behaviour. Numerous people have complained about the overpowered Burgundy and Lithuania and the weakness of Muscovy. Same with the tendancy of the German states to be gobbled up by one major power or another. On that point, I totally agree, I am completely in favour of making the AI behave in a certain manner (ie, France consolidating French territories, not conquering Germany) that makes a lot of sense.

The problem is that some people seem to be arguing that there aren't enough historical events, which makes much less sense to me. What I was opposed to is the historical events in EUII that "forced" conformity to history, such as Austrian inheritances. Also, I found the monarchs to be annoying, since you knew who was coming and when, so I'd sit on my heels until Gustavus Adolphus showed up and then lay the boots to the rest of Europe. It may be accurate, but doesn't allow for very realistic gameplay. I'm not enough of a roleplayer to be willing to try and ignore my knowledge of history to not gain an advantage in the game.

 

[MacGregor]

And then we get into an argument of whether the actions of the countries in the game are plausible or not, which no one can win because no one can prove plausibility conclusively.

So it's very subjective, and you may think it's implausible, while others may think otherwise, and no one has the ability to prove either way, because it's all hypothetical. Even if there are implausible outcomes we can agree on, it can be overcomed with mods IMHO.

Plausibility isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. Isaac Asimov handled it this way. It's possible that the Earth could have formed into a sphere (it didn't, it's slightly oblong). It's also "possible", given the correct alignment of stars and planets, et al, the Earth could have formed in the shape of a pancake (nothing in the laws of physics that prohibets it from happening under very specific circumstances). However, to say because they are both wrong that a pancake earth is just as likely as a spherical earth is wronger than either. One (shperical earth) is plausible, the other (pancake earth) is not.

What we have now is too many pancakes and not enough spheres.

 

[unmerged(514)]

[...]
PS: What I'm saying is, while I agree that sometimes the outcomes are implausible, I think many people who complain are taking a very high-handed position in assuming their correct in saying that the game is all out implausible.

Unless someone can quantify plausibility, I hope those persons can refrain from a superior attitude.
[...]

Ok, you are developing the Theory of Plausibility...

Let's get some practical examples:

- Provence inheriting Portugal.
- Mecklemburg colonizing america in 1470
- Austria colonizing Africa in 1480
- ... Teutonic Order, those ancient mariners, were there too!
- Mecklemburg inheriting Sweden (take it, Johan!)
- Ottomans pacific for the ENTIRE game in europe.
- Christians pacific for the entire game in relation to the Ottomans.
- France ends always as a horseshoe.
- Wales conquered by one of the Irish countries.

Choose your poison...

 

[unmerged(514)]

Plausibility isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. Isaac Asimov handled it this way. It's possible that the Earth could have formed into a sphere (it didn't, it's slightly oblong). It's also "possible", given the correct alignment of stars and planets, et al, the Earth could have formed in the shape of a pancake (nothing in the laws of physics that prohibets it from happening under very specific circumstances). However, to say because they are both wrong that a pancake earth is just as likely as a spherical earth is wronger than either. One (shperical earth) is plausible, the other (pancake earth) is not.

What we have now is too many pancakes and not enough spheres.

This is brilliant and states my position.

 

[Belissarius]

Indeed, and precisely in your NEXT post you vomited over the "nomination", wasn't it, Belissarius?

Are you imagining things? I did no such thing.

But then again we are on the opposite side of this debate and its been your style to cut me down, so why should I be surprised that you would manuafactor "facts."

 

[minority]

Plausibility isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. Isaac Asimov handled it this way. It's possible that the Earth could have formed into a sphere (it didn't, it's slightly oblong). It's also "possible", given the correct alignment of stars and planets, et al, the Earth could have formed in the shape of a pancake (nothing in the laws of physics that prohibets it from happening under very specific circumstances). However, to say because they are both wrong that a pancake earth is just as likely as a spherical earth is wronger than either. One (shperical earth) is plausible, the other (pancake earth) is not.

What we have now is too many pancakes and not enough spheres.

Yeah but my main point still stands. Can we quantify plausibility and compare them? Did Asimov come up with reasoning, or perhaps calculations on why a pancake earth is not plausible?

It's like that judge who said, "I cannot define porn, but I know it when I see it".

Of course, not being a Paradox fanboi (God knows they rarely get everything right at first go), but I must say the modding possibilities are endless, and I'd think that getting the game and modding it is a far better route to go.

Although having no AI files makes it harder to do what you want to do (I fully get that it's not historical determinism), but on the other hand, a dynamic AI would react to what we throw at it. So instead of trying it's bestest to follow the AI files, we use events to increase the possibility that he follows what we consider a plausible decision. But the dynamic AI can make sure that should the nudging those events give are ignored due to AI choices in events, the AI is still able to go on without guidance and pursue its own path.

Perhaps some may think that Paradox should be the ones doing a big part of the job, instead of relying on modders. I have no arguments pertaining to that, but I do think that despite being a niche crowd, we are a very varied audience, and thus modding is a very good way to allow gamers to mold the game to their tastes. And as I've said, there is IMMENSE potential with the modding capabilities, and with some hope Paradox can improve modding tools as we go along.

In conclusion, I do hope those who've been holding out get the game, and thus be able to contribute ideas towards the modding community (or mod themselves! I'm trying my hand at flavour tag changing events). At the very least, this will ensure that your ideas of what a good game should be could come into fruition quicker and more precisely

cheers

 

[MacGregor]

Yeah but my main point still stands. Can we quantify plausibility and compare them? Did Asimov come up with reasoning, or perhaps calculations on why a pancake earth is not plausible?

It's like that judge who said, "I cannot define porn, but I know it when I see it".

That was Justice Potter Stewart a very bright, practical man who made a great justice. In law, as in science, as in life and yes, even in games, many things not on the borderline can be classified "plausible" or not without going into any great analysis. I don't need any quantifying to say that the Cherokee dominating European markets in 1466 is not "plausible." Nor do I need a study on the speed of a horse to determine that English discovery of the West Coast of the US in 1477 is not plausible.

Isaac Asimov was a much brighter person than I can ever hope to be. He saw no need for some sort of "pancake calculus" to make the bald statement that a pancake earth was not plausible. If he had sought out such a calculus, we could have rightly considered him a bit eccentric, if not outright nuts. He just relied on good ole common sense, something still very useful if we are aware of the pitfalls that can come from relying too strongly on it.

Let me guess, you're a CPA?

 

[unmerged(40707)]

I have some objections to Stonewall's arguments few pages above.

Yes, EU3 engine is superior to EU2 one, especially script engine. But it doesn't say moddability is far more superior.

Let me handle monarchs, advisors, generals and admirals by event, if I want to as a modder and it will be true.
Let me activate, force or deactivate internal mecanisms by event, like random monarchs / regencies / inheritance for example, if I want to as a modder and it will be true.
Let me add a day condition in a script if I want to as a modder and it will be true.
Let me have different AIs for different countries, if I want to as a modder and it will be true.
Let me differenciate CoAs and flags and shapes of all of them, one by one, if I want to as a modder and it will be true.
Let me change CoAs/flags for a tag (ie. without changing tag), if I want to as a modder and it will be true.

Let me... well, it should be enough but maybe not an exhaustive list.

In other words, let me have the best of EU2 and the best of EU3 combined in a single game.

And I forgot:
Let me change "bitmaps" for interface according to played country. This flavor one was not possible with EU2 neither.

Btw, I'm fed up with reading "straight-jacket". It is an insult to the work I do in AGCEEP since september 2005 as HC member and since March 2005 before.

 

[minority]

Ok, you are developing the Theory of Plausibility...

Let's get some practical examples:

- Provence inheriting Portugal.
- Mecklemburg colonizing america in 1470
- Austria colonizing Africa in 1480
- ... Teutonic Order, those ancient mariners, were there too!
- Mecklemburg inheriting Sweden (take it, Johan!)
- Ottomans pacific for the ENTIRE game in europe.
- Christians pacific for the entire game in relation to the Ottomans.
- France ends always as a horseshoe.
- Wales conquered by one of the Irish countries.

Choose your poison...

- Provence inheriting Portugal.
Why not? The dynastical dynamics aren't directly demonstrated. Provence marrying into the Portuguese dynasty is perfectly plausible. I'm sure you'd say different if it did happen IRL, and if no one ever inherited the distant Low Countries, perhaps we'll find their inheritance implausible.

-Mecklemburg colonizing america in 1470
I agree with this one. Colonisation should be fixed, and I hope Paradox is workin on it. I'm aware of your colonisation fix. I've been wanting to try it.

However, if it happens later (in my game, they went to New Orleans around the 1650s), then I find that plausible.

- ... Teutonic Order, those ancient mariners, were there too!
Well again, it depends when. If they evolve into a naval nation why not. I still think that countries are allowed to try colonisation, but non-naval nations should have their colonisation chances greatly penalised. So they can try, but they'll find succeeding harder.

- Ottomans pacific for the ENTIRE game in europe.
A new pacific Sultan? Of course not the entire game, but I must say I've seen the Ottoman Empire waging war northwards but they were stopped by the Big Red Blob (Austria). I think the blobs are the bigger problems, since after they form everyone's wary of starting wars too huge and would rather preserve the balance of power.

- Christians pacific for the entire game in relation to the Ottomans.
As I've said, I find Austria the Ottoman's main enemy and they frequently fight until they blobbify. Venice has been known to have a go, as well as Castille.

- France ends always as a horseshoe.
Agreed. God just annex those lil'... countries.

- Wales conquered by one of the Irish countries.
I'm no expert in the history of this era, but if someone musters the strength, why not? This is no longer an issue of the AI. It is the issue of the military mechanics, in which the Irish can actually muster a force enough to beat back the English. The Irish waging war against England can be perfectly plausible, but I guess you're disputing the fact that they won and gained Wales. As I've said, that's an issue with the military mechanics.

As I see it, maybe having AI files would help those who want direct control mod the game easier. But as we know that's not forthcoming, I do think that the game's moddable with available tools, in that we try to manipulate AI via a different method: contextual events.

My Bohemia game's turned out quite well. 1680 now and the main colonisers are Aragon, Castille, England, Burgundy (Low Countries) and France. Tuscany and Mecklenburg has a colony each, but they do have long coastlines and high naval techs.

I myself am a medium colonial power. Got Haiti, Jamaica and the Cape colonies. But I'm a transformed Bohemia, with high naval tech (amongst the highest) and the Colonial Ventures NI to offset full Innovative DP sliders.

cheers

 

[minority]

That was Justice Potter Stewart a very bright, practical man who made a great justice. In law, as in science, as in life and yes, even in games, many things not on the borderline can be classified "plausible" or not without going into any great analysis. I don't need any quantifying to say that the Cherokee dominating European markets in 1466 is not "plausible." Nor do I need a study on the speed of a horse to determine that English discovery of the West Coast of the US in 1477 is not plausible.

Isaac Asimov was a much brighter person than I can ever hope to be. He saw no need for some sort of "pancake calculus" to make the bald statement that a pancake earth was not plausible. If he had sought out such a calculus, we could have rightly considered him a bit eccentric, if not outright nuts. He just relied on good ole common sense, something still very useful if we are aware of the pitfalls that can come from relying too strongly on it.

Let me guess, you're a CPA?

LOL I didn't even know what CPA meant. Had to Google it. I'm not even American

I'm more of a physicist.

Common sense can be misleading, and you'd be surprised at what mathematicians have taken the time to prove (they can be so eccentric you don't really wanna lunch with them ). That is why we define laws as precise as we can, because if we all relied on common sense then there's bound to be argument (should porn be defined as per the judge's discretion?).

That's why while I do agree with certain of your arguments on events that you consider implausible, I equally object the notion that there are more implausibilities then there are plausible outcomes, simply because there are hypothetical situations in which those outcomes may occur, but we can not quantify the plausibility of those hypothesis.

OT: But pancake shaped cosmic objects of large sizes such as the Earth are actually improbable and Asimov's right. But there is actually physical proof.

As for the Cherokee dominating European markets (it's usually just Andalucia), I may sound like an apologist when I say this, but CoTs IMHO shouldn't be taken directly as a geographical location. Trade through Andalucia comes from many places, the New World included. Having Cherokee merchants in Andalucia could be taken as them profitting from some of the trade going through Andalucia, such as the New World trade, of which the Cherokee are definitely part of. That however, is merely my interpretation.

cheers

 

[Belissarius]

I have some objections to Stonewall's arguments few pages above.

Yes, EU3 engine is superior to EU2 one, especially script engine. But it doesn't say moddability is far more superior.

Let me handle monarchs, advisors, generals and admirals by event, if I want to as a modder and it will be true.
Let me activate, force or deactivate internal mecanisms by event, like random monarchs / regencies / inheritance for example, if I want to as a modder and it will be true.
Let me add a day condition in a script if I want to as a modder and it will be true.
Let me have different AIs for different countries, if I want to as a modder and it will be true.
Let me differenciate CoAs and flags and shapes of all of them, one by one, if I want to as a modder and it will be true.
Let me change CoAs/flags for a tag (ie. without changing tag), if I want to as a modder and it will be true.

Let me... well, it should be enough but maybe not an exhaustive list.

In other words, let me have the best of EU2 and the best of EU3 combined in a single game.

And I forgot:
Let me change "bitmaps" for interface according to played country. This flavor one was not possible with EU2 neither.

Btw, I'm fed up with reading "straight-jacket". It is an insult to the work I do in AGCEEP since september 2005 as HC member and since March 2005 before.

You know the one side says we don't want historical determinism to say such is just mudding the waters and yet we have a demand for a day condition in the triigers. Seems to me that many of the people are demanding the ability to script deterministic events. Why would you need a Day trigger except to force an event to trigger on a specific day?

Just because you can't do all the things you could in EU2 doesnt mean eu3 is less modable than eu2.

The problem you are having is that you want something that is mutually exclusive to EU3. You can't have eu3's dynamic system and have EU2's scripted features.

The game appeals to history buffs like myself who like the current system. It doesnt appeal to history buffs like yourself who want something more like EU2. It is impossible for paradox to please both of us. So paradox did what was smart they went with what they wanted. I got lucky and got the game I wanted you were unlucky and got a game you didn't want. The only practical choice is to work with what you have or give up.

The fact remains that there is far too many people who agree with paradox's direction to actually be able to change their direction they have too much support. A large portion of their niche market likes what they are seeing, by no means all of them but the company has support and they have a desire to move the game in the direction they are going.

 

[Basileus777]

You know the one side says we don't want historical determinism to say such is just mudding the waters and yet we have a demand for a day condition in the triigers. Seems to me that many of the people are demanding the ability to script deterministic events. Why would you need a Day trigger except to force an event to trigger on a specific day?

Maybe its because everyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't fit into one monolithic group.

 

[MacGregor]

OT: But pancake shaped cosmic objects of large sizes such as the Earth are actually improbable and Asimov's right. But there is actually physical proof.

But the point is you don't always have to "prove everything" to have a really good gut feel for what is right. I can just about guarantee you Asimov never worked out the numbers on the liklihood of a large cosmic object coalescing into a pancake. All he had to do was look! Every large object tends to clump together into a spherodic shape. Only smaller ones clump into pancake like objects (for instance one of the larger asteroids, I believe it is Ceres but I may be wrong) and they do that only very rarely. That's observation and induction, not number crunching. There are more than one way to arrive at a conclusion, and both may be right. Sometimes "physical proof" comes in the shape of objects without having to look into the numbers.

And my gut says that Cherokees (or any other New World tribe) could not completely "dominant" trade in Andulasia. Trade, yes that's plausible, dominant, no. They really wouldn't have even made a blip (first off, there were only a very few million North American Indians north of Mexico and east of the Mississippi (read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, Steel for an explaination for their small numbers); second, other than tobacco, they didn't have anything that Europeans wanted; no gold, no silver, no much of anything).