War of the Triple Alliance
- Thread starter Luchofeio
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
You want an intrinsic difference in game design to be decided by the player... with a toggle?
I don't think you understand how this works.
I don't think you understand how this works.
I would guess the North becomes increasingly militant the more you endorse slavery, until you have to surrender to their demands or they take control of the government by coup. And when that happens, the South will become increasingly militant until they secede as the CSA.
USA is the Union tag, and CSA can rebel from the USA. Not sure what the third member of the Union tag is (I'm assuming Texas could also become part of the Union tag... maybe not though).
I'd advise players who really want forced, historical wars to consider making a mod with events causing militancy (for rebellions), alliances, wars etc. You can start planning what you want in before release, even. It's been pretty clearly stated that the base game won't be this way, but they're also aiming to make the game more moddable than Vicky was.
Perhaps I don't. But with hardly any historical events to 'guide' you and the AI this game will be as bland as can be. EU2 had perhaps too much of these events but I have never liked the sandbox EU3.
I don't see a problem with his suggestion, except that it might not be doable cost-wise for Paradox to make those historical events. Although they could just copy the events present in Victoria...
I think people deliberately confuse "sandbox" and "simplistic" :rofl: EU3 with the latest expansion is definitely sandbox, but it's a long way away from 1.0 vanilla in terms of features and interactivity.
I suppose the expanded timeline for Vicky2 would even include the Chaco War between Paraguay and Bolivia from 1932-1935...
Not to be overly flippant or anything but... are there any constructive comments in the forums from your point of view?
This "guidance" was given through mission and decisions. A much better system than hardcoded events imho.
Not to be overly flippant or anything but... are there any constructive comments in the forums from your point of view?
Yes
I tend to agree with you, but on the other hand I think you can rest assured that the mod community will do their part to make a non-sandbox alternative, seeing as how moddable paradox games are.
Even in HOI3 you had the Danzig or War decision, not to mention the barbarossa and the marco polo bridge decisions. However there is always something missing. Such as nonexistant pearl harbour decision.
Well, a player decision is one thing, but when the AI is supposed to take a % chance of doing something it turns out it will be forcing a war event out of scripted code, e.g. between 2 AI nations. Since developers nowadays are avoiding that sorts, at least they could involve a player decision but how they treat the AI thats something different perhaps?
Making the AI go to war because it "notices" the fact that a neighbour is weak and thus invades it, or refrain from declaring war on a nation because it has a strong military, those might be the simplest examples of wardec models. I expect more depth to it however, as they already posted hints about, but still the limits are there and some times randomizers would be used to trigger a war?
The sandbox style is the only real option over the scripted events style.
Scripted events do not make for a good game simply because they can not account for in game progress and direction.
This debate was over at least 3 years ago and a different direction was taken. I am surprised that there are elements of the forum that are confused about this.
Scripted events do not make for a good game simply because they can not account for in game progress and direction.
This debate was over at least 3 years ago and a different direction was taken. I am surprised that there are elements of the forum that are confused about this.
That's good because I miss the days when you could learn the course of history (albeit an alternative one) by playing Paradox games. Even though sandbox has many merrits something like the madness of the War of the Triple Alliance would never happen because everything is logic. Too bad.
What if the issues you make more important to them clash with their views on slavery? It would mainly be the lack of us parties that might make your chances of this smaller
Yeah, it could load Victoria 1, or Victoria 2, depending on your choice.
Spoken like someone who never played EU2 enough. I love historical events, too, but let me be honest--when you've played the Ottomans so well that you have colonized North America, your slider for tech is all the way to Innovative, and you rule the seas, to be told that you suddenly have to go back to Muslim tech level or you'll lose everything in an event-provoked civil war, you start wondering if the game could be a bit more flexible.
If you think sandbox is bland, you're out of your mind. Play HTTT. Play In Nomine. The interplay of decision and event chains, some for specific countries, some for all countries, is astounding, and it replicates alternate history far better than anything you're suggesting would. If Russia is allied with the Ottomans, the Crimean War shouldn't necessarily fire. And sure, they can monkey triggers so as to make them hyper-specific, but that just seems to be reforming something that could be done more elegantly in another way.
That other way is in generic events that apply to nations who've made certain decisions or find themselves in certain conflicts, whether border tensions or jealousy over conquests. And in Victoria, this applies all the more; it is more important that they anticipate all the things that the player can do rather than that they model every single war that has occurred and all the conditions that have taken place in our timeline. You know, they've as much as said that the American Civil War can be averted with some difficulty. That means a hell of a lot more than the historical determinists' complaint that--gasp--the ACW may not occur precisely as it did historically.
You want a game where we can play ahistorically, but not too much, right? That, to me, puts us on a leash. Either you go sandbox or you go events-based historical gaming, and the former surpasses the latter in one very important dimension: it keeps up with the player. I want a game were WWI could happen, which is why I loved the Great War system from the first game. At the same time, I don't think there should have been Franz-Ferdinand assassination events if Serbia, say, was fully independent. History doesn't work that way. It works like a sandbox, emerging from consequences of what has already occurred. History doesn't work the way your events-based game would suggest.
- Status