The Great Game by missions

[RedRalphWiggum]

It just occured to me that if the UK and Russia's missions were linked, the great game could be simulated really well in the game. the player would have the option to ignore it, but if they didnt, it could lead to a really engrossing aspect of the game. Thougths?

 

[OHgamer]

It just occured to me that if the UK and Russia's missions were linked, the great game could be simulated really well in the game. the player would have the option to ignore it, but if they didnt, it could lead to a really engrossing aspect of the game. Thougths?

I think these are exactly the kind of things that missions would be designed for, and would be the best way to handle them


similarly, giving Belgium a mission to establish its dominance in the Congo river basin should allow for a other missions that, cumulatively, would allow for the "Scramble for Africa".

just another example of how missions could be used

 

[phillosopher]

Yes I also think that we could see the use of missions for keeping the game on fairly historical lines all over. They can be used as a guiding force on the AI to keep their basic concerns and considerations to those of the National Interests of the powers at this time. I could see a system where you can completely guide the AI through most of the historical wants and needs of the countries in question.

 

[kierun]

As a big fan of that period of history, I do hope we have missions, decisions and can use explorers to discover uncharted territories. I wonder how zones of influences will work...

 

[Orinsul]

Why should there be explorers? its the C19th the worlds on the map the explorers are in aid of scientific discovery, botonists and astrologers not map-makers. Anyway im seconding the Missions to keep the path of history thing, will the second not have AI files like the first that steer the nations onto the right path from the start like the first did?

 

[alvaro]

i don't really see what this "great game" thingie might add to the game that a good colonisation system would not do better.
o

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

i don't really see what this "great game" thingie might add to the game that a good colonisation system would not do better.
o

Erm... do you know what the great game was? Its nothign whatsoever to do with colonisation

 

[ComradeOm]

It just occured to me that if the UK and Russia's missions were linked, the great game could be simulated really well in the game. the player would have the option to ignore it, but if they didnt, it could lead to a really engrossing aspect of the game. Thougths?

Given the historical specifics of the Great Game you wouldn't even need to formally link them. Russia would have a set of 'Expand into Central Asia' missions and Britain would have its 'Protect India' missions. Plus you have the spheres of influence mechanic to keep things interesting...

I expect that missions will/can be used to simulate a lot of the individual campaigns of the Vicky era. There's probably much greater scope for their use in Vicky than, say, EUIII

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Given the historical specifics of the Great Game you wouldn't even need to formally link them. Russia would have a set of 'Expand into Central Asia' missions and Britain would have its 'Protect India' missions. Plus you have the spheres of influence mechanic to keep things interesting...

I expect that missions will/can be used to simulate a lot of the individual campaigns of the Vicky era. There's probably much greater scope for their use in Vicky than, say, EUIII

I think it would add an extra dimension if they were linked, although its wouldnt be essential. Maybe at a certains point, both Russia and the UK get a decision 'Do you want to participate in the great game?' and from then on, their next 5 missions are dependent on what eachother do, i.e. Russia needs to bring Afghanistan out of the UK's sphere of influence and into Russia's, while the UK will similtaneously try and prevent it happening...

 

[alvaro]

Erm... do you know what the great game was? Its nothign whatsoever to do with colonisation

yeap, roughly. i had a light idea before this forum but suddenly i've read about this thing everyday and doesn't really seem too important for the game imho.
i know that the "actions" had more to do with espionage than colonisation but for the game aspects it affects colonisation anyway.

i know my comment might be a product of some ignorance but i would not give more importance to the Great Game than to the fachoda incident, for instance.

maybe it's just that i don't like the close relation between event-driven history and hardcoding. i'd be happy if this subject could be simulated by adding intelligence or spies to help colonisation and control uncivilized nations rather than "eventalize" the Great Game.

 

[ComradeOm]

I think it would add an extra dimension if they were linked, although its wouldnt be essential. Maybe at a certains point, both Russia and the UK get a decision 'Do you want to participate in the great game?' and from then on, their next 5 missions are dependent on what eachother do, i.e. Russia needs to bring Afghanistan out of the UK's sphere of influence and into Russia's, while the UK will similtaneously try and prevent it happening...

I don't think such a system is warranted, largely due to the nature of the Great Game itself. This was really nothing but some bickering along the border that was blown out of all proportion by some British writers. It certainly wasn't some formal or structured event and, beyond country specific missions, should be left to the game engine itself to handle

 

[Shuriken]

yeap, roughly. i had a light idea before this forum but suddenly i've read about this thing everyday and doesn't really seem too important for the game imho.
i know that the "actions" had more to do with espionage than colonisation but for the game aspects it affects colonisation anyway.

i know my comment might be a product of some ignorance but i would not give more importance to the Great Game than to the fachoda incident, for instance.

maybe it's just that i don't like the close relation between event-driven history and hardcoding. i'd be happy if this subject could be simulated by adding intelligence or spies to help colonisation and control uncivilized nations rather than "eventalize" the Great Game.

The Fachoda incident is certainly an important event of the period, but that's what it is, an event. The Great Game was a cold war which spanned decades. They're apples and oranges.

 

[Merrick Chance']

yeap, roughly. i had a light idea before this forum but suddenly i've read about this thing everyday and doesn't really seem too important for the game imho.
i know that the "actions" had more to do with espionage than colonisation but for the game aspects it affects colonisation anyway.

i know my comment might be a product of some ignorance but i would not give more importance to the Great Game than to the fachoda incident, for instance.

maybe it's just that i don't like the close relation between event-driven history and hardcoding. i'd be happy if this subject could be simulated by adding intelligence or spies to help colonisation and control uncivilized nations rather than "eventalize" the Great Game.

The Great Game is important because by the end of the 19th century everyone besides France was terrified of the potential that Russia had. There was a great deal of tension due to a lot of countries realizing that if Russia were to modernize its military it could quite possibly defeat the whole world. This tension was eased when the Japanese defeated the Russians, but however the worry was there for all of the countries on the Russian border. In Victoria it's way too easy for Austria, for example, to have an alliance with Russia for the entirety of the game, same with the UK if you don't take any Russian territory during the Crimean war. There was a great deal of anti-Russian sentiment due to conflicting interests in the Balkans and Central Asia, conflicting interests which will screw up the ability of the game to act historically if they aren't included.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Yes I also think that we could see the use of missions for keeping the game on fairly historical lines all over. They can be used as a guiding force on the AI to keep their basic concerns and considerations to those of the National Interests of the powers at this time. I could see a system where you can completely guide the AI through most of the historical wants and needs of the countries in question.

And what, exactly, gave you the idea that trying to railroad the AI through a developing alternate history based on the occurrences of our one instance of recorded history was a good idea overall?

Ok - that was a trick question; We all have different ideas of what makes a game fun, and your idea just happens to be one of those I dislike immensely. I prefer AIs that try to be competitive within the limitations of the game engine over those that try to play to a prearranged plan that does not, necessarily, have relevance to how the game is progressing.

So let's hope that Victoria 2 takes a middle road between the two extremes and leave the extreme positions free for modders to create something catering to the extreme viewpoints.

There was a great deal of anti-Russian sentiment due to conflicting interests in the Balkans and Central Asia, conflicting interests which will screw up the ability of the game to act historically if they aren't included.

Why should the game act historically (i.e. as in our history) if things go differently in the game's developing history as you play?

Some minor missions with minimal rewards* to set the theme, yes, but anything further than that would seem unwarranted.


* If Victoria 2 features nation specific missions with rewards on the scale of those of EU3+exps Spanish missions it'll be rip-out-the-guts-of-the-writer time, oh yes.

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

The Great Game is important because by the end of the 19th century everyone besides France was terrified of the potential that Russia had. There was a great deal of tension due to a lot of countries realizing that if Russia were to modernize its military it could quite possibly defeat the whole world. This tension was eased when the Japanese defeated the Russians, but however the worry was there for all of the countries on the Russian border. In Victoria it's way too easy for Austria, for example, to have an alliance with Russia for the entirety of the game, same with the UK if you don't take any Russian territory during the Crimean war. There was a great deal of anti-Russian sentiment due to conflicting interests in the Balkans and Central Asia, conflicting interests which will screw up the ability of the game to act historically if they aren't included.

Going further, in Victoria relations between the powers tended to be too static. If you had good relations, then you could keep good relations easily, barring a war. If you had bad relations, it was very difficult to bring them back up. For example, after the Crimean War, UK and France typically have terrible relations with Russia, making it very difficult for France to ally with them later, as was historical. VIP helped this a bit by increasing the amount of DI points everyone gets, but I think it could still be better.

 

[alvaro]

Why should the game act historically (i.e. as in our history) if things go differently in the game's developing history as you play?

Some minor missions with minimal rewards* to set the theme, yes, but anything further than that would seem unwarranted.


* If Victoria 2 features nation specific missions with rewards on the scale of those of EU3+exps Spanish missions it'll be rip-out-the-guts-of-the-writer time, oh yes.

+1
in my last victoria game i civilized china and left it to the AI. it became a 2000 points industry giant while russia had no railroad.
the concept of the great game is nice but if it's going to be hardcoded or event/mission oriented with just a russian focus it might fail. who can tell that the world threat is not going to be the uk in the first place?

 

[Merrick Chance']

Why should the game act historically (i.e. as in our history) if things go differently in the game's developing history as you play?

A lot of the diplomacy that occurred around that period was due to geopolitics rather than ideology, so in many cases it really wouldn't make sense for the Victorian era to go any way but the way it went excepting large differences, like if Prussia didn't make the attempt to become Germany. Doesn't matter what minor events the player changes, Russia is still going to have a great deal of land and a large frontier to expand, while not having any ability to defend it's border due to the lack of any piece of geography marking the Western Russian border. Beyond this, Russia has always wanted a warm water port (this should be made via a modifier that greatly lowers naval capability), which could only be gotten through getting Turkey, Iran, or Pakistan. All three of those are important to Britain, and all three will greatly threaten Britain if Russia moves into a position where it can take any of those areas.

Yes, Paradox should have missions that reward ahistorical acts that 'make sense', but the small number of players at the time makes it difficult to see many alternate histories besides the obvious CSA existing or France beating Prussia.