The Thin Line between Player Freedom and Fantasy

[Keishou]

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.

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?

Who wants to keep their nation technologically backwards if there are no to few drawback to industrializing? Throughout history, a great emperor or empress has emerged at irregular intervals to bring Russia out of the old ways and into whatever is "modern" at the time. The player, and AI, of any country should not be bound by only thinking about their own welfare, like too many of the emperors and sultans of the past. We think of the prestige and welfare of the nation. That's a huge reason why Russia, China (insert other nations here) should not be forced to live in squalor for eternity. But such a change should not come over night. There should (IMO) be not only literacy for the people, but also a counter for the wish for democracy. Democracy and freedom is seldom given, it is demanded. And if it is not demanded, it we be squandered in a few years. Perhaps certain parties should only appear at a certain threshold of desire for freedom and only be voted on by pops that desire freedom?

Immigration will never be truly balanced, as the biggest drawback of it is forbidden to discuss on these forums and have no place in the marvellous games that Paradox creates. But perhaps it could be simulated by having hard limits as to how much population you can have per province?

The balance will have to be made by the starting values of what you have got to work with, so that certain huge countries are held back, at least for a while.

 

[ComradeOm]

But such a change should not come over night. There should (IMO) be not only literacy for the people, but also a counter for the wish for democracy. Democracy and freedom is seldom given, it is demanded. And if it is not demanded, it we be squandered in a few years. Perhaps certain parties should only appear at a certain threshold of desire for freedom and only be voted on by pops that desire freedom?

Which was already present, in another form, in Vicky. Industrialising produces liberals and liberals (not to mention socialists!) want representative government. One of the big challenges in the original game was maintaining an absolute form of government while creating a modern industrial base. This is a far deeper system than simply having some abstract "democracy meter"

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.

Welcome to the 19th C

It makes absolutely no sense at all to engineer the game so that absolute monarchies are as balanced as more progressive form of governments in the late game. Obviously its a position that is completely without basis in history (see: Imperial Russia) but its also very odd to defend it from a game balancing perspective. Do you believe that tribal governments in EUIII should be 'balanced' to make them competitive with administrative monarchies (for example) in the late game?

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

Because liberal states did not "regulate people's lifes"? I'd wager that Tsarist Russia 'interfered' with its citizens' lives a lot less than the governments of contemporary France or Britain

 

[unmerged(71032)]

ComradeOm, note bolded part of those two quotes:

Which was already present, in another form, in Vicky. Industrialising produces liberals and liberals (not to mention socialists!) want representative government. One of the big challenges in the original game was maintaining an absolute form of government while creating a modern industrial base. This is a far deeper system than simply having some abstract "democracy meter"

It makes absolutely no sense at all to engineer the game so that absolute monarchies are as balanced as more progressive form of governments in the late game. Obviously its a position that is completely without basis in history (see: Imperial Russia) but its also very odd to defend it from a game balancing perspective. Do you believe that tribal governments in EUIII should be 'balanced' to make them competitive with administrative monarchies (for example) in the late game?

To be fair, I don't understand your point at all here - or in your answer you have missed my point entirely.

You state that it's a viable challenge to stay absolutist, while absolutist monarchy got no advantages gamewise? What's the point of such challenge then?

Of course, you can do it just because its hard (just like you can try even harder feat - building a fascist state), but does it make good game mechanics? Something that will give players options, you know, like "I can go liberal route and it will allow me X, but I can also go conservative route and it will give me Y". Right now, going any other route then liberal will give players only a big headache, that's all.

I'm leaving all historical aspect aside here. Gamewise, it's bad for Vicky to just have one, optimal route for everything, no matter if it's conquest, economical victory or anything else. It's equivalent of HoI series having single tactics for everyone, with 1 type of units being so good that it doesn't make any sense to build anything else.

 

[Karri]

I recently played a game as Germany, where I turned into a liberal democracy or something, then got an event which meant that 60% of my armed forces turned into rebels. Luckily I had just set my army upkeep to near zero, so they didn't cause too much troubles. However some events like that would play out very good...since the way revolutions/rebellions play right now is just silly...you have a few peasants rebelling and you just send in a few divisions and that's the end of it.

I'd like to see something which would turn a whole sect of population against you, and instead of random revolution in random provinces, see something concentrated; a real rebellion.

 

[unity100]

I recently played a game as Germany, where I turned into a liberal democracy or something, then got an event which meant that 60% of my armed forces turned into rebels. Luckily I had just set my army upkeep to near zero, so they didn't cause too much troubles. However some events like that would play out very good...since the way revolutions/rebellions play right now is just silly...you have a few peasants rebelling and you just send in a few divisions and that's the end of it.

I'd like to see something which would turn a whole sect of population against you, and instead of random revolution in random provinces, see something concentrated; a real rebellion.

it shouldnt be with events. its rather rigid mechanics. if you play any other country than scripted ones, or, if the random event doesnt happen to fire, you will have no issues. and its not mechanics even. no cause effect.

russia, japan can be taken as models to absolute monarchist/aristocratic industrialized countries for the period 1850-1918.

their form of government allowed strict control of what happened, and therefore they were able to concentrate on what the state wanted than what the society wanted.

whereas in democracies like usa, militarisation and armament was often hampered by political decisions (like how us fleet sucked major tit compared to other nations after the civil war, and how did they have pitiful amount of oceangoing ships during the years leading up to us-spanish war, around 1870, because congress had stifled naval budget and prevented rebuild of the navy), in countries like japan there was no such issue. and japan was able to become a modern superpower which could beat russia in one of the major fleet battles (and later land battle) of early 20th century, just after they started remodernizing in 1850 from a full feudal, medieval society.

in vicky we dont have any problem in that respect at all as a democracy. we dont have a parliament, we dont have to justify budgets, and we can do anything we want with hoards of money available. just turn liberal, and let the money flow in. then you can spend as you will.

unrealistic. you couldnt do that. if you had a fiscally conservative party in power, it would prevent you spending like madmen on armament.

i think that should be introduced too. parliament should be able to block military budgets and building of ships and armies depending on what party is in power and how much armed forces is compatible with the party's political mindset.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

Which was already present, in another form, in Vicky. Industrialising produces liberals and liberals (not to mention socialists!) want representative government. One of the big challenges in the original game was maintaining an absolute form of government while creating a modern industrial base. This is a far deeper system than simply having some abstract "democracy meter"

Welcome to the 19th C

It makes absolutely no sense at all to engineer the game so that absolute monarchies are as balanced as more progressive form of governments in the late game. Obviously its a position that is completely without basis in history (see: Imperial Russia) but its also very odd to defend it from a game balancing perspective. Do you believe that tribal governments in EUIII should be 'balanced' to make them competitive with administrative monarchies (for example) in the late game?

Because liberal states did not "regulate people's lifes"? I'd wager that Tsarist Russia 'interfered' with its citizens' lives a lot less than the governments of contemporary France or Britain

I think Alojzys point was that absolutists should not be better, but it should be in many cases be impractical or very dangerous to change to a more liberal form without lots of work. In Vicky 1 as it stands, there is almost no reason not to reform at the first possible opertunity. The plurality conection to democracy in Vicky 1 is not enough of an obstacle for reform as it stands now.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I think Alojzys point was that absolutists should not be better, but it should be in many cases be impractical or very dangerous to change to a more liberal form without lots of work. In Vicky 1 as it stands, there is almost no reason not to reform at the first possible opertunity. The plurality conection to democracy in Vicky 1 is not enough of an obstacle for reform as it stands now.

Maybe have a low plurality rating make the people more likely to vote in extreme parties?

 

[unity100]

I think Alojzys point was that absolutists should not be better, but it should be in many cases be impractical or very dangerous to change to a more liberal form without lots of work. In Vicky 1 as it stands, there is almost no reason not to reform at the first possible opertunity. The plurality conection to democracy in Vicky 1 is not enough of an obstacle for reform as it stands now.

just the hardship for changing to a liberal policy wouldnt suffice.

for, once you get over the initial hardship, it would be smooth sailing. endless immigrants, auto building factories, money money, lots of money.

nothing preventing you from spending huge amounts of cash for militarization.

basically its beyond surreal : the current model in vic allows you to earn cash and resources like a liberal country, but spend and conquer like an absolutist country.

nowhere, no period in the world, this has been reality.

 

[unmerged(81228)]

the current model in vic allows you to earn cash and resources like a liberal country, but spend and conquer like an absolutist country.

nowhere, no period in the world, this has been reality.

Really? I could point out one, quite recent example


Btw: I don't undersatnd why some people say there is no any other route then liberal. I alway try different options and play with differnt agendas - depend what country I play.
For example, playing Japan I try to stay as absolutist monarchy, playing one of Indian countries (VIP) I'm trying to unify India and introduce communism, playing German I always try to play as fascist. Choosing different countries and ways of progress is something which makes this game so interesting!

 

[unity100]

Really? I could point out one, quite recent example

please do then. if you are going to give an example from bush usa, i will remind you that had bush & co been able to act like we act on top of liberal countries in victoria, we would all be having american passports now.

Btw: I don't undersatnd why some people say there is no any other route then liberal. I alway try different options and play with differnt agendas - depend what country I play.
For example, playing Japan I try to stay as absolutist monarchy, playing one of Indian countries (VIP) I'm trying to unify India and introduce communism, playing German I always try to play as fascist. Choosing different countries and ways of progress is something which makes this game so interesting!

again, you try to stay an absolutist monarchy, you play as a fascist if you are playing germany, you try to communize india.

you are basically roleplaying. you dont need any kind of balance, realism, or anything for that. roleplaying is roleplaying.

thats irrelevant to this discussion.

the main issue is, not only being able to play unbdridled fascist while playing a liberal country is extremely unrealistic and leaving no practical ( NOT roleplay) option for the player other than going democracy/laissez faire, but also very mood killing. surreal.

it kills realism. it kills believableness. its little different than incorporating spaceships into the game and saying they came here through time portals.

the game is supposed to depict 19th century. and leave aside 19th century, not even with republican rome they were able to go on bellicose rampages like we are able to do in victoria. each and every war republican rome waged needed a lot of grounds building by the faction in the senate that was trying to lure the country into war. staged fake crises, long speeches, casus bellis and so on.

but, i can get on top of usa in 1800s, and then go on arming like madmen (while spending the very precious gold of the fiscally conservative american people like crazy) and then go on conquering the world as if im not president of usa, but napoleon the megalomaniac and noone asks me what im doing.

 

[unity100]

i want to say a few things on freedom, and fantasy.

those two are not opposing things. they are not related to each other in a direct sense either.

a game is a software that attempts to emulate conditions in a certain reality. and therefore allow the player to live and experience that reality.

that reality may be fictitious, entirely fantasy, or an actual projection of an actual reality from our history, modern times, or possible future. or even may be mario bros, in a reality where plumbers jump over snails.

star wars, paradox games, call of duty, all games fall within this basic framework.

but.

in ALL those games, there is the need and demand for realism. at this point someone may err by thinking that words 'realism' and 'fantasy' do not meld in the same pot. actually, they do. and they make or break games, and even books or movies :

in every alternate reality, fantasy reality, a fantasy world, there is a measure of what's acceptable and what's not acceptable. the world can be a fantasy world, but that fantasy world has to be consistent within itself. people may be able to fly in such a fantasy world, have superpowers, but all has to fall within the boundaries of reality that that author has depicted while creating the world.

for example, if there appears a jedi that is able to move planets from one spot to another with his mental powers, or destroy planets by the power of thought, the fans of star wars games and universe wont buy this. it will be a poke in the eye. unbelievable. it doesnt fall within the definition of jedi the world has been working on since a long while.

or, if we take an example from our reality, french aristocracy suddenly realizing the merits of pluralism and ideals of enlightenment en masse and the country suddenly moving to a fully liberal, democratic, equal society wont be bought by anyone. for, it is unrealistic within the framework of the reality that existed in the world at that point in time.

these are important for the atmosphere and believability of the game. if they are violated, game also becomes some sour tasting vaudeville.

the player freedom is defined as the ability of the player to do things and affect things in that world, limited by the reality of that world itself.

basically, the player should be able to do anything s/he wants, as long as what s/he wants to do falls within the acceptable reality set of that world.

ie, if, a player says 'i should be able to sense the emperor's evilness and be able to beat him as a jedi before he becomes the emperor, even if it is hard', this falls within the reality of the defined star wars universe.

or, alternatively, if a player says 'i want to be able to set up a secret society and assasinate napoleon before he becomes emperor', this also falls within the boundaries of the particular reality in our past.

so, player freedom is the ability of the player to do things that were possible in the particular reality defined beforehand. you may not allow a player to become a jedi in a star wars game. this limits player freedom. you may prevent a player from being the king of a country in a medieval game. this limits player freedom. you may prevent the player to be able to build a rocket and launch to orbit in a medieval game. this does NOT limit player freedom.

therefore :

game = particular world defined with its own particular set of reality rules
player freedom = the ability of player to experience the entire world within the set of reality rules of the game.

 

[unmerged(81228)]

How did you guess my example? :rofl: Yes, spending about 50% of global military expenses by one country and invanding other countries is an example that liberal countries can go berserk from time to time



Relax bit mate. If spending money like crazy and playing as cross between Napoleon and Hitler amuse you - so be it. Game is about amusment.

You are right I'm kind of role-playing games (well, my favourite of forever is Fallout2). I don't need artificial restictions and don't really understand why some people do. If you concentrate on money-making and after a few days you think "it's boring", why not to try different approach rather then complaining about possibility of money making?

You don't HAVE to go this way and if you don't like it this way, choose another. I still don't understand where the problem is.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

unity100

You might want to looka at what way P-dox is heading with the Heir to the Throne expansion to EU III. Now all wars will be fought for special war aims, and the peace treaties will reflect the aims that started the war (reclaim core, trade blockade etc). I see great potential for jockeying about trying to play Bissmark outmanouvering for casus bellis.

 

[unity100]

How did you guess my example? :rofl: Yes, spending about 50% of global military expenses by one country and invanding other countries is an example that liberal countries can go berserk from time to time

your example is wrong, as i told before.

it doesnt matter the expense is 50% of global military expenses or not. what matters is the percentage of their OWN budget that they are spending on military.

and, they didnt just invade any country without any reason. there has been an incident on 9/11, rightfully or wrongfully the leads were pointing towards afghanistan and iraq, and they invaded those countries.

they didnt invade mexico, they didnt invade and annex britain, they didnt invade and annex spain.

not only they had to go to extensive justification attempts to even do what they did, but also found out that they were increasingly being blocked by bureaucracy and their parliament, and then outright lost the elections.

this doesnt happen in victoria.

Relax bit mate. If spending money like crazy and playing as cross between Napoleon and Hitler amuse you - so be it. Game is about amusment.

game is not about 'amusement'. it is about a historical strategy. if it fails to depict the actual historical conditions at the given time, it fails to fulfill its definition and advertisement.

if i wanted to be 'amused' in that manner, id play mario.

you dont even understand the importance of politics and economics and their realism in this game anyway. they are a major part of this game. are you even sure you are playing actually this game and not something else ?

You are right I'm kind of role-playing games (well, my favourite of forever is Fallout2). I don't need artificial restictions and don't really understand why some people do. If you concentrate on money-making and after a few days you think "it's boring", why not to try different approach rather then complaining about possibility of money making?

would you like it if i came up and said that i wanted jedi, hannibal, imperial japanese navy and paris hilton in fallout ?

how would those translate into fallout's atmosphere ? how would they affect the fallout feel ?

You don't HAVE to go this way and if you don't like it this way, choose another. I still don't understand where the problem is.

yes you outright dont understand where the problem is. for, you are not playing the game as a historical strategy, but as a roleplaying game. it doesnt matter whether this game is the one we are talking about, or another game, for, in a roleplay setting you will be able to persuade yourself into believing that you are in the circumstances you imagine, without needing much atmosphere from the game.

and even so, if we introduce hannibal and carthaginian armies with elephants to fallout 2, even you will have a hard time using your imagination.

 

[unmerged(81228)]

I'm kind of tired of this argument. Very quickly:

your example is wrong, as i told before.

It is not wrong. It is example of liberal country going berserk. Iraq invasion had nothing to do with 9/11. And again, level of spending for military (50% of global spending) does matter - if you take into considaration that USA is the only from developed countries without free health service. So, as you seem liberal countries can have differnt priorities then peacefull coegsistence and all-citizens welfare. What is exactly in line with this wha you can do in game - you can introduce reforms or spend on arms, it is your choice.

And, again, it was example from this century, in XIX century it was MUCH easier - just have a look at history of the UK for this instance.

game is not about 'amusement'. it is about a historical strategy.

So, we agree to disagreement then. For me the basic purpose of the game is PLEASURE. I would never play boring game, doesn't matter how historical it is.

you dont even understand the importance of politics and economics and their realism in this game anyway.

And please again, relax a bit and change your tone. You are simply rude now.
I understand the role of politics and economics, I simply do NOT need game keep my hand all the time and saying "don't do that, don't do that".

would you like it if i came up and said that i wanted jedi, hannibal, imperial japanese navy and paris hilton in fallout ?

how would those translate into fallout's atmosphere ? how would they affect the fallout feel ?

Knights of King Arthur, Guardian of the Bridge and Mad Cows were in Fallout. I didn't notice atmosphere disruption at all :rofl:
Jokes aside, your example has nothing to do with discussion. You could rather ask: what if there is a powerful armor in Fallout2 (as it really was), there is no other choice becosue it is so powerful. I would answer: I used to wear better-looking but much less powerful combat-jacket. Becouse I wanted to

You know, you don't HAVE to do everything what game allows you to

 

[unity100]

It is not wrong. It is example of liberal country going berserk.

it is wrong :

Iraq invasion had nothing to do with 9/11.

that is your opinion. the bush administration justified their invasion of iraq by linking it to al kaeda. rightfully, or wrongfully, they have had to do it, and justify it to be able to do it. not only to their congress and senate, but also to their populace. they went to great extents to persuade the populace that they were right.

totally to the contrary of the situation in victoria.

And again, level of spending for military (50% of global spending) does matter - if you take into considaration that USA is the only from developed countries without free health service. So, as you seem liberal countries can have differnt priorities then peacefull coegsistence and all-citizens welfare.

no, it doesnt matter. because usa is much richer than the average country in the world, any percentage they spend on anything will be considerable. the economy of california itself is much bigger than many countries in the world.

you cant go compare apples to oranges by taking usa's military spending and comparing to the world average which also has tanzania, trinitad tobago and tuvalu in it.

furthermore, tanzania, trinidad tobago or tibet does not decide u.s. military budget.

us parliamentary bodies are responsible for that. if they think that the budget is too high in proportion to THEIR total budget, they witthold funds.

And, again, it was example from this century, in XIX century it was MUCH easier - just have a look at history of the UK for this instance.

if i look at the history of u.k. its more even to contrary.

u.k. had the economy and strength to conquer probably half of the world, but they didnt. they could go invade and annex many countries, but they didnt. the governments during american rebellion even had to justify themselves to the parliament against the mps who were sympathetic to rebel cause.

So, we agree to disagreement then. For me the basic purpose of the game is PLEASURE. I would never play boring game, doesn't matter how historical it is.

then you are playing the wrong game. for, paradox's games are preferred for their accurate portrayal of conditions and mechanics in our history. this is what separates them from any other HISTORY game out on the market.

http://www.gamersgate.com/strategy/history

And please again, relax a bit and change your tone. You are simply rude now.

i dont see any rudeness in my tone after going through what i typed before. and i dont understand this 'need to relax' fixation of yours. this is an ordinary internet discussion. there is no need to be tense or need to relax. we are not smoking weed. maybe you yourself are too tense ?

I understand the role of politics and economics, I simply do NOT need game keep my hand all the time and saying "don't do that, don't do that".

then why dont we just abolish the manpower requirements for armies, their upkeep expenses, and travel penalties so that they wont bother us by limiting us ?

Knights of King Arthur, Guardian of the Bridge and Mad Cows were in Fallout. I didn't notice atmosphere disruption at all :rofl:

they were all there as easter eggs and encounters, as humor. they werent there as an integral part of gameplay, and in addition they were modified as to fallout universe.

nowhere you had to fight hannibal's armies with their punic war equipment, regalia and elephants, or nowhere you had to fight a jedi.

 

[unmerged(81228)]

You still don't get what I'm saying. Iraq had nothing to do with 9\11, therefore cassuss belli mechanism, implemented in the game wouldn't allow you to attac it.
Level of military spending shows that liberal country is not equal to peacefull country.

And, one final point. I have enjoyed playing Vic last few years and still enjoy it. When you ahave constant problems here. Maybe YOU are playing wrong game?

 

[unity100]

You still don't get what I'm saying. Iraq had nothing to do with 9\11, therefore cassuss belli mechanism, implemented in the game wouldn't allow you to attac it.

'iraq had nothing to do with 9/11' is your opinion, my opinion. it wasnt bush & co's opinion, and it wasnt american houses' opinion and public's opinion during the time leading to the iraq war.

the fact is, bush & co HAD to persuade the houses AND the public that there was a link in between al kaeda, 9/11 and iraq. they may have used fake evidence for that, but they DID. and in the end they succeeded in creating enough public opinion that they were able to pass their agenda. they didnt just outright decide one morning to attack iraq, and then proceeded with it in the afternoon.

this is the point.

Level of military spending shows that liberal country is not equal to peacefull country.

as you can see from playing the game, it is a dud inequivalence. because the liberal country makes a lot more money, the balance is offset to the other side already. and because there are no restrictions built into the game as there should be in a democratic country in regard to war, a liberal democrat country can be more warmongering than a fascist country in the game, much more easily, and even hands off. (you dont have to manage your factories or infrastructure at all. money just flows in)

And, one final point. I have enjoyed playing Vic last few years and still enjoy it. When you ahave constant problems here. Maybe YOU are playing wrong game?

hmmm. paradox is famed as a software house that produces historically accurate history grand strategies. that is their stated mission, and also was repeated numerous times by their representatives in the forum in similar discussions.

i like historical strategies that depict the accurate historical conditions in a given time period. and im here.

no, i think im playing the right game. but, there is a problem with the implementation of politics and ideologies in victoria.

 

[unmerged(81228)]

You see, I don't see any problem with that. If I don't like particular feature I simply don't use it. Or, in worst case scenario, i do event/modify save - but rather to increase number of option given by game then decrease it.

 

[OHgamer]

Folks, this thread is about a game set in the 19th and early 20th centuries, not about 21st century politics, please stick to examples from the actual period in question depicted in game to support your arguments.

The nature of States and their relation to their citizens is very different in 2009 than it was in 1909, and even moreso than in 1839. If the game is to reflect historical plausibility, it should reflect the attitudes and aspirations of the people the states represent in the timeperiod the game is set in, not contemporary 21st century political attitudes.

If the United States, a functioning democracy with universal male suffrage for all citizens of European ancestry, can declare war on its neighbor, defeat it, annex 1/3 of that neighbors' land, and not only preserve its democratic institutions, but be able to further expand its democratic institutions afterward, then I see no reason why the player of the USA in Victoria should not be able to do the same. Even better, that said USA player should not be prevented from being able to seize the colonial possessions of a weaker competing colonial power because it is a liberal democracy, as that liberal democratic political system certainly did not prevent it historically from defeating Spain in 1898 and seizing control of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.