The Thin Line between Player Freedom and Fantasy

[Surgünoglu]

I am thinking about how quickly Russia industrialized in Victoria. It never seemed as backwards as it was historically; I understand Russia being ahead of the Ottoman Empire for a variety of reasons, but ahead of Germany? So consistently? It seemed as though serfdom didn't even exist.

And yet I can't find too much fault with this; why not allow Russia to take a different course? I suppose my problem with that is that one course always seemed to be the most obvious--liberalize, industrialize, reform, and so on. What player would maintain a technologically backwards Russia?

On the same note, I want to see players freed up to take their nations down any road they wish, so long as they're willing to overcome the consequences of such choices. The problem I see is that, while I want to have a chance at, say, an anarcho-liberal Hawaii playing host to immigrants from the world, I also don't want to see China, Russia, the Ottomans, and Persia all guaranteed to turn into Westernized powers within the early game period. On the other hand, I don't want to see the AI nations hardcoded to make this or that illogical decision.

How do you think that balance is struck between allowing players to take the courses they wish while also avoiding complete randomness--or domination by the same great powers every time?

 

[Tjuk]

The downsides of becoming a liberalized nation weren't properly modelled. Revolutions were complex events that were only marginally controlled by the greatest political minds of the time. If Russia suddenly would become a constitutional monarchy with a liberal laissez-faire government during the 19th century, the Tsar would be killed within a week and replaced with an autocratic nephew. Furthermore, democracies in Victoria have no limits when it comes to declaring war and economic choices (apart from those dictated by which party currently is in power). The problem is that implementing this would severely limit player control, so perhaps some kind of Machiavellian construction could be implemented where a player may be able to influence the democratic process to further his own goals.

 

[OHgamer]

How do you think that balance is struck between allowing players to take the courses they wish while also avoiding complete randomness--or domination by the same great powers every time?

At this point I do not think the AI has the "savviness" to be able to do both of these things at the same time. I think it either has to be allow player freedom and accept AI randomness (channeled to a degree by events and decisions), which is what the Clausewitz engine allows, or go back to the old engine where the AI was told to behave in generally historical lines and if the human player started going off the historical path too far, accept that the AI simply would not be able to respond proactively UNLESS a new AI file that covered the gameplay situation the player developed in game was created and accessed.

V1 showed the limitations of the old model as you describe above for players that like to play off the historical path. EU3 and HoI3 show the limitations of the new engine for players that want the historical feel of the periods the games are set in.

So the question becomes, if it isn't possible (at least not at the moment, perhaps in the future as computers continue to become more powerful) for the AI to do both, what should development focus on? Paradox with the Clausewitz engine have apparently decided to focus on the more open-ended game to give the human player more freedom of action even if that means the potential for wildly ahistorical AI behavior exists (and if the player is creating their own history, why should the AI not be able to do the same to meet the challenge of the player). Not everyone likes this approach, but that is where Paradox appear to be at the moment.

From a modders point of view, I think this is probably the right decision - the Magna Mundi mod for EU3 shows what is possible to channel Clausewitz-engine based games into more historical paths while still giving the player a good amount of leeway to create their own history, while I'll be the first to say that it is almost impossible to develop an AI system for VIP for Victoria 1 that would cover every potential human gameplay situation that might arise (and never mind trying to craft events with enough trigger conditions to fit whatever a human player might create in game so the event makes contextual sense). The number of events needed to switch AI files would be so huge as to make the mod even more sluggish than it already is. In the end, I really think Clausewitz is more adaptable to the wide variety of potential human gameplay situations in a game than the old engine. Only those who expect a perfect historical simulator would likely find better results in the old engine, and even then, you'd have to ensure the AI always made historical choices and did not do anything of its own free will ahistorically (like colonial wars, the bane of my modding life).

That's how I see the situation. Give it another 5-10 years and maybe both forms of gameplay can be done by the AI at the same time, but right now I just don't think it's possible to basically have our cake (unfettered human gameplay) and eat it too (have the AI behave historically in the vast majority of circumstances yet still be able to respong to the unfettered human gameplay competently).

 

[Nooki]

Perhaps the noblilities response to a liberal revolution could better simulate the historical problems with such a change.

Speaking out of head but i think russian nobility had a quite strong position, which would make them meet any liberal ideas with steel.
In, ie, Sweden Nobels didn´t have that strong of a position which made it easier for liberal ideas to get hold.

 

[ashandresash]

(...)
That's how I see the situation. Give it another 5-10 years and maybe both forms of gameplay can be done by the AI at the same time, but right now I just don't think it's possible to basically have our cake (unfettered human gameplay) and eat it too (have the AI behave historically in the vast majority of circumstances yet still be able to respong to the unfettered human gameplay competently).

I strongly support Paradox view in this matter. As we have here a trade-off (as stated by OHgamer), I prefer paying with some ahistorical behaviour of the AI, earning plausibility of outcomes, and good game experience, rather than acting like a "godly" player, just waiting for known issues to profit. The only thing we could do to improve these trade-off conditions is new features, gameplay mechanics and game balance, to improve plausibility.

Perhaps the noblilities response to a liberal revolution could better simulate the historical problems with such a change.

Speaking out of head but i think russian nobility had a quite strong position, which would make them meet any liberal ideas with steel.
In, ie, Sweden Nobels didn´t have that strong of a position which made it easier for liberal ideas to get hold.

+1

I think new parliamentary system, with "upper camera" like the representation of "de facto" powerful interests... could handle these situations, and making of revolutions (liberal, socialist...) a good point in game.

I think it's better rather than making "absolutism" competitive. For example, evolution from HoI2 sliders to HoI3 politics is, for me, a good example of this.

 

[Arilou]

The issue is for Paradox to actually accurately model the problems any victorian regime would face (for player and AI alike) give the AI a good handle on what consequences it's actions would have, and then let things spin.

Basically the AI should be constricted not by hard-coded events (except perhaps, in a few very extreme and notable circumstances for things that positively cannot be modelled any other way) but by the underlying game engine, and the same restrictions should apply to a human player.

Yeah, try to go liberal in 1836 Russia, but expect trouble. If you can manage it (as player or AI) feel free to try, but it will should take a lot of time, attention and management to pull something like that off without some unforseen consequences.

 

[diskoerekto]

I remember back in EU2 times, I had post-its for historical events so that for example as Austria I never touched a country Bohemia, Hungary or Milan went to war with and get happy at their plummeting because I knew at certain dates, even if I was a OPM and they were huge I was going to inherit them.

My opinion is, even EU3 is not enough "free". For example you have to be scandinavian for the sound toll and the event gives you global trading efficiency. In an ideal game whoever holds a way to a CoT should gain a percentage of the value of the CoT. In an ideal game the bonuses and penalties for religions should not be fixed but for example change according to average of nations' government types who have that religion. I mean, there should be no lines saying "new world countries are this way" "afghan people are that way" "reformed religion has those benefits and drawbacks". On the other hand, there should be so much events&decisions&AI mechanisms that, with no nation specific, date specific, culture specific, religion specific data the timeline would still look at least crudely like real history.

I can say that PI is on the right course for the last 10 years and I do not doubt that they will make my dream game one day. The Clausewitz engine was a huge step forward and Vicky2 would be another.

What matters is not history, probably geography. Some people built a colonial trading empire with seamanship in Netherlands while others built excellent clocks in Switzerland while sharing the same race, culture, religion and time frame.

 

[The Andy-Man]

the trouble in victoria 1 was that it so badly portrayed the politics and economics of the period. Russia couldn't liberalize because it didn't have the political will, nor could it industrialise because it was not an inticing place to invest it. These things have never changed until very recently, and Stalin more or less had to force induistrialisation and it had unpleasent consequences, much as the happened when the Tsar tried in the 1890's (if i am remembering things properly).

I think the gane woiuld benefit from a much more abstract economic system and a more dynamic political one. But thats just me

 

[daemonofdecay]

I am thinking about how quickly Russia industrialized in Victoria. It never seemed as backwards as it was historically; I understand Russia being ahead of the Ottoman Empire for a variety of reasons, but ahead of Germany? So consistently? It seemed as though serfdom didn't even exist.

And yet I can't find too much fault with this; why not allow Russia to take a different course? I suppose my problem with that is that one course always seemed to be the most obvious--liberalize, industrialize, reform, and so on. What player would maintain a technologically backwards Russia?

On the same note, I want to see players freed up to take their nations down any road they wish, so long as they're willing to overcome the consequences of such choices. The problem I see is that, while I want to have a chance at, say, an anarcho-liberal Hawaii playing host to immigrants from the world, I also don't want to see China, Russia, the Ottomans, and Persia all guaranteed to turn into Westernized powers within the early game period. On the other hand, I don't want to see the AI nations hardcoded to make this or that illogical decision.

How do you think that balance is struck between allowing players to take the courses they wish while also avoiding complete randomness--or domination by the same great powers every time?

I'll be honest here: I always will take player freedom over historical accuracy. Yet I feel your pain - I play the Paradox games because of said accuracy. Thus if the game has no relation to history, I don't have as much fun.

I think that a real example of comprimise is the Magna Mundi mod for EU3. It offers incredible depth and a real challenging game, but it never tries to force the player down one specific path.

 

[unity100]

Perhaps the noblilities response to a liberal revolution could better simulate the historical problems with such a change.

Speaking out of head but i think russian nobility had a quite strong position, which would make them meet any liberal ideas with steel.
In, ie, Sweden Nobels didn´t have that strong of a position which made it easier for liberal ideas to get hold.

they outright killed alexander II (or III i dont remember) with the liberal constitution still in his jacket's pocket at the time of the event.

if he had hastily proclaimed the constitution a day before, entire world history might have followed at totally different course.

 

[unity100]

I'll be honest here: I always will take player freedom over historical accuracy. Yet I feel your pain - I play the Paradox games because of said accuracy. Thus if the game has no relation to history, I don't have as much fun

my opinion is, correctly modeling the state of countries at a given date, and allowing all the subsequent centuries of gameplay happen with game mechanics instead of scripted events is fine by me.

what i think is, we are always playing an alternate timeline when we play a historical game. the actions we do, influence everything immediately relevant. and they, in turn influence stuff.

even if we strictly roleplayed a country and stuck to a historically scripted course, in an alternate world, everything could still be different.

alexander II (or III whatever) may have proclaimed the russian constitution before being assasinated, russia turned into a constitutional monarchy, probably leaving out the socialist revolution. (the assasination and the rise of communism in russian jails had decades in between them).

or, napoleon iii not bailing out on the sardinians in the first attempt at italian reunion in the war against austria, could changed a lot of things.

anything. some of the colonial wars are actually result of random occurrences which would not happen if a person was in another place with 15 minutes time difference. (rather distant past, but war of jenkins's ear).

therefore im quite alright with having accuracy go in a lot of things.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

they outright killed alexander II (or III i dont remember) with the liberal constitution still in his jacket's pocket at the time of the event.

if he had hastily proclaimed the constitution a day before, entire world history might have followed at totally different course.

It was Alexander II, and IIRC he was killed by an anarchist student, not a conservative noble.

Anyway, I see two possible (though not mutually exclusive) approaches: Either give players all freedom, but make their actions have severe consequences (as Arilou has already alluded to).

The other option is to leave restrictions in place, but make these restrictions themselves open to manipulation by the player.

Like e.g. Russia's liberal constitution: The player might really really want to establish it, because liberalism gives really nice industrialisation boni. BUT in order to be able to establish such a constitution, the country needs to have a certain level of, say, pluralism, or literacy, a certain portion of the elite (nobles, capitalists, clerks, officers whatever) needs to be liberal, or certain other reforms (say, habeas corpus) need to be established. etc.

 

[unity100]

It was Alexander II, and IIRC he was killed by an anarchist student, not a conservative noble.

well, yea, but he was killed right before he ousted the constitution, which was quite liberal.

he survived another assasination attempt a few days before if im not mistaken.

the student was probably helped by the nobles without him knowing, and the opportunity created.

Like e.g. Russia's liberal constitution: The player might really really want to establish it, because liberalism gives really nice industrialisation boni. BUT in order to be able to establish such a constitution, the country needs to have a certain level of, say, pluralism, or literacy, a certain portion of the elite (nobles, capitalists, clerks, officers whatever) needs to be liberal, or certain other reforms (say, habeas corpus) need to be established. etc.

still, i think the op is rather complaining about something im also annoyed with : there is no other choice than to liberalize, accept all immigrants and industrialize heavily with the help of those to acquire power and go on warmongering.

there is no alternative gameplay. a warmongering absolutist monarchy is at a disadvantage with a liberal nation because going haywire with wars as liberal is possible, and doesnt have any consequences. so its just foolish to remain an absolutist monarchy. or, doesnt provide any sizeable convenience when going warmongering. no other playstyle possible.

 

[Minodrin]

Isn't that the crux of it? That all systems of goverment should have their own advantages and disadvantages.

And while it might be possible to hold onto an old type of goverment the people don't want, it should be hard to form a new type of goverment the people don't want, especially if they are pleased with their old regime. For example a conservative state going massively liberal. Maybe there'd be a large increase in militancy or conservative pops go reactionary.

I think there should be civil-war or coup events, by which I mean that instead of singular rebels popping up and you whack them down, they rise up almost all at once, and parts of your army switch sides (and on the other hand after that you don't have to whack the mole halfway to genocide). Didn't a EU3 patch give rebels with a cause?

I also think that an event like this should be a multiple choice event. "Liberal or bust", "Attempt to mediate" "Give deep concessions" or "Down with the liberals", allowing you to take control of the rebel side, give up certain changes for less rebels and stuff like that.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

Isn't that the crux of it? That all systems of goverment should have their own advantages and disadvantages.

I would be very cautious when it comes to such gamey approach to the problem.

Yes, to have good GAME you need balanced system of advantages and disadvantages. You know, like ideology X is better then Y in economic power, but worse then ideology Y in military power. So far so good.

Then comes history, that actually shows certain ideologies/political systems being better OVERALL, not just balanced for game purposes.

Usual solution of game developers is in such situation is either ignoring the history and going all out for gameplay or leaving those overall better systems for late game, as evolution of the initial set of rather balanced systems.

Now, in Vicky...

Main problem in this area is that industrialization is what really matters in game. In theory, all political systems in this game are similarly good - they have advantages and disadvantages, that "cancel each other out"... until we figure out, that having advantage in industrialization is the only thing that really matters, since early industrialization can give you everything else.

But how to deal with that? Either by making industrialization less important in game (probably bad idea, because it's basically a game about industrialization), or by inflating bonuses to other political systems even more (not good either, because of that leading to the ahistorical ubersoldats or superdiplomats in authoritarian states).

Solution might be more strict set of conditions for liberalism, and problems with keeping it up (there should be constant temptation to regulate people's lifes and limit their freedoms). Only well established liberal states should be relatively free of that issue.

There might be some other solutions as well. Ability to manually promote cappies was one of the main culprints of early liberalization. Having this ability taken away from players and replaced with indirect approach (you have to create conditions for capitalism to grow, not just pay some cash for upgrading 25.000 farmer POP to cappy and watch the industrial revolution start).

 

[unity100]

Now, in Vicky...

Main problem in this area is that industrialization is what really matters in game. In theory, all political systems in this game are similarly good - they have advantages and disadvantages, that "cancel each other out"... until we figure out, that having advantage in industrialization is the only thing that really matters, since early industrialization can give you everything else.

no they arent. liberal, full citizenship laissez faire democracies have huge immigration and therefore industrialization advantage.

this gives them the manpower to fill rgos and factories, pop becomes employed and can get cash, militancy decreases, money is generated in heaps that can fund military expansion, and you get the manpower to man your armies, and the budget to fund education for research.

and you have no penalties when you wage war on anyone as opposed to an absolutist monarchy doing it.

whereas on the conservative side your citizens emigrate, leaving you without manpower for your army, cash for your budget, workers for your industry. you continually bleed, and just be an immigration generator for liberal democrat countries.

im very suprised actually to see someone say all political systems are equally good. i suppose you havent played an absolutist monarchy, or tried a laissez faire immigration magnet. therefore you dont know how big difference they have.

But how to deal with that? Either by making industrialization less important in game (probably bad idea, because it's basically a game about industrialization), or by inflating bonuses to other political systems even more (not good either, because of that leading to the ahistorical ubersoldats or superdiplomats in authoritarian states).

Solution might be more strict set of conditions for liberalism, and problems with keeping it up (there should be constant temptation to regulate people's lifes and limit their freedoms). Only well established liberal states should be relatively free of that issue.

There might be some other solutions as well. Ability to manually promote cappies was one of the main culprints of early liberalization. Having this ability taken away from players and replaced with indirect approach (you have to create conditions for capitalism to grow, not just pay some cash for upgrading 25.000 farmer POP to cappy and watch the industrial revolution start).

liberalism should not be the de facto way to win the game. for warmongering, an absolutist conservative monarchy should be more accommodating. this was how it was in the history. russia, despite not being industrialized, still coped up with russia, france, britain, sardinia, ottoman empire all at once in crimea, and come up roughly even. austria dominated south europe, even italy until the end of 19th century. these countries were absolutist monarchies.

whereas on the other side france, britain, usa did more colonization than warring and grabbing lands from other civilized countries.

for solution, im on the side that says senate should be the final deciding place where a war decision is allowed or not, and even if the senate allows, waging war as a democratic country should upset liberals in the population. it should be more so if the country being attacked is another democracy.

 

[OHgamer]

Italy post-unification was by no means an absolutist monarchy in the mode of Russia or pre-1860s Austria or even post-1848 Prussia and its German imperial successor state. While Victor Emmanuel II did have some royal prerogatives in terms of appointment, the Italian parliaments in the end held the purse strings and the king could achieve very little without having the support of the political party in power.

It was more on the model of the 19th C monarchy in Spain or Portugal (and the system was consciously modelled on Britain) than anywhere approaching Russia, Austria, or Prussia/Germany.

See Martin Clark's excellent Modern Italy, 1871 to the Present, (London:2008) for a solid discussion of the post-unification Italian political system and the limits on the power of the monarchy in dealing with the Parliamentary system.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

no they arent. liberal, full citizenship laissez faire democracies have huge immigration and therefore industrialization advantage.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

What I was saying is that liberal system got advantage in the critical element of the game, while other systems got advantages in non-critical elements of the game. Result, unbalanced game. Think we agree on that one?

im very suprised actually to see someone say all political systems are equally good. i suppose you havent played an absolutist monarchy, or tried a laissez faire immigration magnet. therefore you dont know how big difference they have.

Please, read my whole post again. I never said they are equally good.

liberalism should not be the de facto way to win the game. for warmongering, an absolutist conservative monarchy should be more accommodating. this was how it was in the history. russia, despite not being industrialized, still coped up with russia, france, britain, sardinia, ottoman empire all at once in crimea, and come up roughly even.

???

Are you trying to say that Crimean War somehow proven some inherent Russian military superiority over the forces deployed against them on the Crimea?

As for their stability advantage, it is in game, authoritiarian regimes have slower pace of war exhaustion rise then liberals. But like I said before, problem is that it does not balance the advantage you have from industrial economy - what's the point of not being tired by war, when superarmed and countless enemy armies control your provinces?

austria dominated south europe, even italy until the end of 19th century. these countries were absolutist monarchies.

I wouldn't call Austria in 2nd part of XIX century absolutist really.

All in all, I wouldn't read that much about the effectiveness of absolute monarchies from southern Europe in XIX century, that was mostly a playground for Russia and Austria rivalry over the Ottoman's and other european powers trying to get something out of that fight.

for solution, im on the side that says senate should be the final deciding place where a war decision is allowed or not, and even if the senate allows, waging war as a democratic country should upset liberals in the population. it should be more so if the country being attacked is another democracy.

Senate is interesting solution and certainly viable, although it would require re-thinking whole diplomatic engine (Right now by giving independence guarantees you can get yourself in wars very easily - should pairlament limit that as well? To what extend? What will affect pairlament decisions?).

As for upsetting liberals, it's already in game, it's just not enough (because you are strong enough to ignore war exhaustion). On the other hand, rising WE pace rise is not solution at all, as making liberal countries total pacifist is not fitting the era.

Some wars should be easy to start though, I mean UK had no problems with fighting all over the world when it saw it fitting.

 

[unity100]

Italy post-unification was by no means an absolutist monarchy in the mode of Russia or pre-1860s Austria or even post-1848 Prussia and its German imperial successor state. While Victor Emmanuel II did have some royal prerogatives in terms of appointment, the Italian parliaments in the end held the purse strings and the king could achieve very little without having the support of the political party in power.

i didnt say italy was. i said austria dominated italy for the better 3 quarters of 19th century.

 

[unity100]

I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

What I was saying is that liberal system got advantage in the critical element of the game, while other systems got advantages in non-critical elements of the game. Result, unbalanced game. Think we agree on that one?

hm, it completely sounded the other way.

we agree on the first part, but we disagree on the latter part. my experience is that there is nothing that being an absolutist monarchy brings, not even non-critical. you cant even change ruling party in betwen conservative ones without risking serious militancy even if you have 90% conservative bigots in your country.

Are you trying to say that Crimean War somehow proven some inherent Russian military superiority over the forces deployed against them on the Crimea?

i think it does. crimean war is sometimes considered first big modern war. and a lot of new technology was widely used there. floating armored batteries (which later opened the way up to ironclads), british rockets etc. and it included 2 great powers and 2 minor powers.

As for their stability advantage, it is in game, authoritiarian regimes have slower pace of war exhaustion rise then liberals. But like I said before, problem is that it does not balance the advantage you have from industrial economy - what's the point of not being tired by war, when superarmed and countless enemy armies control your provinces?

none. and to be honest i never fear war exhaustion. even if it was, i wouldnt want the difference to be portrayed in that respect. its rather unrealistic.

I wouldn't call Austria in 2nd part of XIX century absolutist really.

thats the part their power wanes indeed. with their influence in italy too.

All in all, I wouldn't read that much about the effectiveness of absolute monarchies from southern Europe in XIX century, that was mostly a playground for Russia and Austria rivalry over the Ottoman's and other european powers trying to get something out of that fight.

it is by no means a small playground. after the reforms, ottoman empire wasnt the pitiful country it was in the better part of the 18th century. if nationalistic movements didnt happen in balkans, it would be probably holding up against russians in balkans up till ww1. and still they did, the russian agenda progressed slowly in balkans -> but they actually generally didnt directly intervene.

summed up with all the happenings in that area i very much think that being able to pursue their interests with the vigor a democracy cant, is a proof of effectiveness of absolutist monarchies in warfare and diplomacy.

you are also forgetting the asian influence of russia. entire colonization of russian asia happened in that century. russia even got alaska in the end.

Senate is interesting solution and certainly viable, although it would require re-thinking whole diplomatic engine (Right now by giving independence guarantees you can get yourself in wars very easily - should pairlament limit that as well? To what extend? What will affect pairlament decisions?).

rome already has senate with distributed seats that can prevent war declarations according to the faction members.

the parliament's limitation should be conditional. ie, for example, whereas a pacifist government may not allow declaration of war in case of violation of independence guarantee, anti military and below should. whereas pro military ones easily allow declaration of war against uncivilized states (or colonial wars against civilized ones), jingoist ones shouldnt put any resistance against any war declaration.

this can be shaped up to a better format in any case, the main idea is senate should mean what it is in a democracy.

Some wars should be easy to start though, I mean UK had no problems with fighting all over the world when it saw it fitting.

and all the wars it fought in better part of 19th century was either colonial wars against major nations, or wars against uncivilized nations, or wars against colonies (boer war). it didnt even get involved in franco-prussian wars.