The Thin Line between Player Freedom and Fantasy

[unity100]

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.

as long as the attitudes of people (the political preferences) and the policy of the ruling party or overall coalition at that date allows for it, there is no problem.

however, the said escapade with mexica wasnt an unwarranted, 'hey i want to conquer' one either. there has been political questions and issues in regard to the status of settlers, after texas, and these were used as a casus belli.

similarly usa didnt decide to attack canada in the morning and in the afternoon its armies were marching towards the border at any point in its history. any act of hostility needed a justification to the houses and the people. regardless of the justification was right and sound, or fake and fabricated.

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.

spanish war wasnt a war that occurred because someone in american administration decided that spanish colonies were weak and 'ripe for taking', and then just outright happened. it passed through all the stages of build up, political tension, casus belli and execution as it happens for all wars for a democratic nation :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War

but, what is more, actually the rule of houses (parliamentary system) even almost caused us to lose the war, had it not been for secretary of navy robertson pulling off a total fraud to build the navy up before the spanish war :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphitrite_class_monitor#The_Robeson_subterfuge


because congress cut and withheld funding for navy after the civil war, american navy was reeking.

even with the fraud the navy wasnt able to get new ships.
only in 1882 the subsequent congress decided to release funds for completion of the ships ordered back in 1870 :

By the time the Garfield administration assumed office in 1881, the Navy's condition had deteriorated still further. A review conducted on behalf of the new Secretary of the Navy, William H. Hunt, found that of 140 vessels on the Navy's active list, only 52 were in an operational state, of which a mere 17 were iron-hulled ships, including 14 ageing Civil War era ironclads. Hunt recognized the necessity of modernizing the Navy, and set up an informal advisory board to make recommendations.[14]

as you can see, in 19th century houses ruled democratic nations. not wannabee fascists.

 

[unity100]

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.

its not a side feature you can choose not to use. every gamer ignores a lot of stuff like that already.

it lies in the fundamentals of the game.

its like a Rome, a republican rome, but a rome which you can play as if there is no senate, despite there is one.

 

[unmerged(81228)]

You know mate, a long time ago when Amiga 500 was a queen of all computers there were games which were kind of interactive movie. So, it was action to some point, then movie stopped and player had to do something, and then film carried on.

From your posts I have impression that you would like Vic to be this kind of historicaly accurate, interactive movie rather then a computer game where you can, in fact, create your own version of history any way you would like to - even with agressive democracies starting war with each other.

As I mentioned before, I really enjoy Vic. Of course, there is room for improvement (always is), but I rather see improvement by adding more options/features/player decisions then by increasing number of limitations.

And I guess I'm lucky: Clausewitz engine is not event driven and is not historicaly accurate - what King says, it is about changing history. So, from this what I see so far, it can be the best game ever.... of course, right after Fallout2

 

[unity100]

You know mate, a long time ago when Amiga 500 was a queen of all computers there were games which were kind of interactive movie. So, it was action to some point, then movie stopped and player had to do something, and then film carried on.

From your posts I have impression that you would like Vic to be this kind of historicaly accurate, interactive movie rather then a computer game where you can, in fact, create your own version of history any way you would like to - even with agressive democracies starting war with each other.

no, actually i am asking for totally the opposite.

i want total player freedom, WITHIN the reality of the given game. i want player to be able to do anything, as long as it can be modeled, and within the reality promise of the given game.

simply put :

i dont want surreal experiences like fighting jedis in fallout, if that was not in the game's original promise and advertisement.

similarly i dont want ignoring senate, populace and doing anything in lieu of them as i wish in a democratic nation in a strategy game. its as if fighting jedis in fallout or a medieval game. surreal, within the reality set defined in the game.

i want to be able to use politics, partisan and bipartisan measures, concessions, demands, political maneuvering to be able to pass my war decisions or other decisions incompatible with the houses in a democratic nation.

not only it is surreal, but it is also taking out a huge gameplay value, leaving those 'restrictions' out.

And I guess I'm lucky: Clausewitz engine is not event driven and is not historicaly accurate - what King says, it is about changing history. So, from this what I see so far, it can be the best game ever.... of course, right after Fallout2

this is not about events, this is about mechanics.

and, you are not lucky, for clausewitz engine already has a senate mechanism that allows/blocks certain decisions depending on the party dominant in the senate : rome vae victis.

and thats the way it should be.

 

[Zelvik]

You know mate, a long time ago when Amiga 500 was a queen of all computers there were games which were kind of interactive movie. So, it was action to some point, then movie stopped and player had to do something, and then film carried on.

From your posts I have impression that you would like Vic to be this kind of historicaly accurate, interactive movie rather then a computer game where you can, in fact, create your own version of history any way you would like to - even with agressive democracies starting war with each other.

As I mentioned before, I really enjoy Vic. Of course, there is room for improvement (always is), but I rather see improvement by adding more options/features/player decisions then by increasing number of limitations.

And I guess I'm lucky: Clausewitz engine is not event driven and is not historicaly accurate - what King says, it is about changing history. So, from this what I see so far, it can be the best game ever.... of course, right after Fallout2

Well the question is what we expect from a game set in a historical setting. If I want to play a free form game, I rather play some CIV game in which I am in full control of what happens in my Empire.

But if I want to play a game about 19th century geopolitics, colonisation, trade and industrialization, I want it to behave in a plausible way. Thats one of the shortcomings of vanilla EU3 in my opinion, that it does not realy check the player and AI actions in a plausible way. The clauswitz engine has a good foundation, a much better one when it comes to the way the AI behaves to changes than the older Europa engine, but it needs plausible checks for the way the world behaves, or you will end up in a situation in 1840 that has become a complete fantasy with hardly any connection to the real world history.

Simply put, I dont want the game to be event driven like "WW1 starts in the summer of 1914" wheter it makes any sense or not. But I want a game that creates tensions between Austria, Russia and Serbia if Austria expands further into the Balkans. I want a game that lets France and Brittain go to each others throats if they cant reach a settlement about their colonial borders in Africa (if they both colonise there). I want Prussia and Austria getting into conflict over the dominance in the German states. I want France to keep an eye on whichever German country that emerges as a potential threat on its eastern border. I want Great Brittain to react if any country tries to rival its naval supremacy. I want France and Brittain to react if Russia tries to conquer the Ottoman Empire. I want Russia to aim for Constantinople for various reasons.

You get the idea. Its a game based in history with Great Powers that act as if they are Great Powers and not bystanders. That have interests, they have to protect, goals to acchieve etc.. The Clausewitz Engine is capable of delivering such an experience as Mods like Magna Mundi for EU3 have shown. Just going around carving out an Empire of your liking should not be something that should be encouraged by the game, but something that should be excessivly hard to accomplish. There were reasons why it wasnt possible historically, and those reasons should be aknowledged by the game.

 

[Mr. Domino]

I think Russia and China present special problems. The sort of problems that France in 1399 EU3 presents-run by a "smart" AI they should over perform. Not just one game in 10 but in every game. Vicky solved the problem by hitting them with an decrease in tax efficiency, hoi2 gave soviets a hardcoded gde penalty, hoi3...is weird. Anyway, its all well and good to say "all nations should be able to do equally well", its a different result if 9 times out of 10 Russia or China do incredibly well while Prussia or Japan flounder. Should the Prussian AI be "smarter" than the French AI? The Russian AI be "dumber" than the Japanese? If no then prepare to see Napolean III rock out a lot or Japan lose since I think its hard to show why bigger nations wouldnt usually destroy smaller nations in a world where POP is power and they are all run with equal competence.

All nations were not created equal in 1836. Industrialization is obviously incredibly abstract in Vicky, the only thing I can think of that makes it easier to industrialize as Prussia than as Russia is literacy rating. IRL there were a variety of reasons places like the UK or Belgium industrilized while others didn't-in a game where you can manufacture a middle class out of whole cloth...

Some nations obviously did westernize and change a lot. Japan is the best example. But tons of other nations didn't, or ran into strong forces that pushed against industrialization. I wouldn't want to play a game where every nation on earth is "smart" and runs a meiji restoration. That game lacks a certain character. Maybe it shouldn't always be the same few nations, but at least part of the time the Ottomans, Russia ect shouldn't fully embrace liberalization/industrialization. A game where everyone tries to run an immigrant friendly industrial powerhouse is a flavorless to me as a game where all European states just try and blob in vanilla eu3. Give those absolutists their own goals some of the time, like with the "tsar of all slavs" event tree in vicky 1.

 

[unity100]

if we just incorporate the real meaning of ideologies and population politics into the equation, what you describe will become a reality :

- you wont be able to easily democraticize and go full industrial and then ALSO act like russia while you are actually america, going conquering everyone
- countries with a conservative population will find it harder to democraticize. if they industrialize, they will have to do it the authoritarian way -> not abundant, boundless like usa, but pinpoint and aim oriented like japan and russia
- the ideologies and population opinion will not only have a meaning, but all nations will also have a character now ; for if you are democratic, the party or coalition populace elects to the parliament will reflect the nation's character, and if you are authoritarian you will only be able to violate ideals of your population only as much as you can. (ie, no alexander going nut with liberal reforms in a conservative russia)

the population opinion and politics will actually themselves be the balancing/differentiating factor in the game, and there wont be great need for such absurd, one off measures like applying penalties to nations.

 

[Gen.Armando]

Reading all the posts here, and seeing a lot of good stuff

but way too complicated for my little perso

Chess game anyone?

 

[Esben_DRK]

I saw a lot of posts concerning liberal countries' and conservative countries' ability to industrialize. To counter the assumption that liberal countries are better at industrializing than conservative countries (Where 'liberal' is defined as laissez-faire and 'conservative' is defined as state capitalism or, to a lesser degree, interventionism), I'll use two examples.

First example: Glass factory.

Second example:
China. Starts as reactionary, with state capitalism. With ease, you can promote clergymen to keep your population under control and keep consciousness and plurality to an absolute minimum. Some of my most successful games has been as China.
I have made a USA with roughly 1 billion inhabitants. I have made a China with roughly 1.1 billion. My USA was, IIRC, 95% Yankees (Limited citizenship), and thus had a huge potential for industrialization. My China had just below 50 % of national culture (Residence), and thus had a smaller potential.
Even with the later start as China (Having to research a lot before being able to industrialize), the bigger potential as USA, and China being crippled from UK's colonial wars, China had the best score. Why? Because USA was a liberal country, and thus had to rely on capitalists to industrialize.

These two examples shows that unity100's arguments simply does not hold water. With a human player steering the nation, conservative nations will industrialize just as easy as the liberal nations will, sometimes even easier.

The AI, of course, will not be as effective at industrializing conservative nations, but on the other hand, the AI will be just as crippled if playing liberal nations. This is not because of the ideologies, but more because of poor AI reactions.

Edit: This is an attack on the comment about the ideologies' economic potential, not the request for better plausibility, which I've seen can work wonders (MMP comes to mind).