War of the Triple Alliance

[unity100]

Interessting theory, if you look past the point that vicky1, eu2 and hoi2 is paradox best games, just look what happened with rome when they decided to make it a sandbox, boring and uneventfull, do you really want the same for vicky2? Point is, there is many good games, that has a balance between events and sandbox, and its those games that really shines imo. What we really need is more and better examples of vicky1 events, with more options for different outcomes, that way nothing is set in stone, and people could make their own choices

ha !

any game built on rome would be boring and uneventful, because roman period up until the last stages were boring and uneventful.

 

[Slargos]

Where?

It has to be, for magna mundi to have a following. Granted, I haven't actually TRIED MM but they tell me it follows a more deterministic route.

 

[Slargos]

It should be noted that EU2 never had events for the 30 years war and not even AGCEEP managed to have a thirty years war worth the name exactly because it's so hard to do deterministic events in a game world that's otherwise dynamic.

Events are basically exceptions to the rules set by the engine. The design philosophy change of paradox these last years is that they've started to improve the engine instead of riddling it with thousands of exceptions.

Yes it did. Granted, they didn't force a war per se IIRC, but they were there.

But yes, I agree with the general design philosophy and this is something I've been hoping would happen a long time, so in that sense I was thrilled with EU3. I was less thrilled with the god awful terrain map mode, but you can't please everyone every time.

Still, the weakness of the model is that it can't properly model exceptional events and wars, which is perhaps a necessary evil.

 

[Surgünoglu]

It has to be, for magna mundi to have a following. Granted, I haven't actually TRIED MM but they tell me it follows a more deterministic route.

You should ask them what their downloads are and compare them to the game's sales. It's good to do your homework but hey, you're on the Internet, so talk talk talk until you feel better, I suppose.

As far as what historical events need to be in Victoria II, please humor me:

Which ones?

 

[Slargos]

You should ask them what their downloads are and compare them to the game's sales. It's good to do your homework but hey, you're on the Internet, so talk talk talk until you feel better, I suppose.

As far as what historical events need to be in Victoria II, please humor me:

Which ones?

That's a curious thing to say to a perfect stranger. Who put a bee up your nose?

I haven't said ANY historical events NEED to be in Victoria. I said that there's a sizeable number of people who want determinism, and since they are so many, a mod is sure to be created to cater to their tastes without the developers wasting their time on creating two games at once.

Honestly? What are you on about?

 

[Surgünoglu]

Emphasis mine:

No one is asking for a VIP-ton of events from Paradox; that would be, of course, completely unreasonable. What is being asked is that some historical events be included, like, the same amount that there was in V1, for instance. The problem I have is with this absolutist approach, which would mean NO historical events included.

Slargos, you're not the only one in the conversation, sweetie. Sorry you feel personally attacked; the Internet is sometimes a scary place.

I'm just calling the bluff of the historical-track camp. If you want something changed, something retained, included, inserted, altered, whatever:

What on Earth is it? What events ought to be in? Seriously, I'd like to know.

 

[unity100]

That's a curious thing to say to a perfect stranger. Who put a bee up your nose?

I haven't said ANY historical events NEED to be in Victoria. I said that there's a sizeable number of people who want determinism, and since they are so many, a mod is sure to be created to cater to their tastes without the developers wasting their time on creating two games at once.

Honestly? What are you on about?

as per the 1 per 1000 rule on the internet :

1 per 1000 visitors of a site click on a banner

1 per 1000 clickers actually buy a product

which also is valid for online communities

1 per 1000 of the visitors become members

1 per 1000 of the visitors become contributing members

so, what you see in forums, posted by people do NOT represent majority's view at ANY point for anything.

had it been, world of warcraft would have to be made into an ultima online clone, for as per the picture drawn by the perpetrators of that view, the whole internet wants to grab each others' necks in back and forth reskill wars.

yet, wow has 18 million+ subscribers, which has grown even more with the 'casualization' of the game, in lieu of forum participants' views.

same also applies to these games, vic 2, magna mundi, this and that.

vocal minority can never be majority.

 

[Alexander Seil]

With the right triggers, events aren't deterministic at all; and flavor events add quite a bit to the game, the research for them has already been done for V1 - why not add them in V2? (in fact, I remember King saying they will be in)

Lol, have you ever tried to make an event with sophisticated enough triggers to take care of all the craziness that human players engage in?

Not to mention that many events in V1 were just straight up straitjacketing nonsense - like the Crimean War.

 

[Surgünoglu]

Ah. I see the confusion. Half of my post was to Slargos, and half to the vocal determinists at large.

 

[Trin Tragula]

It has to be, for magna mundi to have a following. Granted, I haven't actually TRIED MM but they tell me it follows a more deterministic route.

I wouldn't say it's more deterministic. It's got much more detailed parameters and many more general event chains but it hasn't got any deterministic events to model specific wars or similar. Certainly nothing like eu2 at all. Their motto is "historical plausibility" as I recall.

 

[Slargos]

I wouldn't say it's more deterministic. It's got much more detailed parameters and many more general event chains but it hasn't got any deterministic events to model specific wars or similar. Certainly nothing like eu2 at all. Their motto is "historical plausibility" as I recall.

I stand corrected.

Anyway, the possibility is there. I think the majority enjoys the free-form gameplay afforded with more general triggers rather than the historical events which are covered under the flavour national decisions of EU3.

Still, if I could have one wish (aside from a terrain map that isn't a complete epilepsy-inducing atrocity to my eyes) it would be event chains that help to set up important game-changing wars like the french and german wars of religion which currently happen to pretty much every nation during the reformation but have become generic and bland.

Decisions helped drag EU3 out of uniformity and gave a sense of uniqueness to the nations instead of having Russia play like a France with greens and yellows instead of blues. Know what I mean?

Flavour.

What this specifically means for Victoria I couldn't say, since this dark time period of meagre Swedish influence really doesn't interest me more than as a platform for MP gaming and as such my knowledge is limited to the Swedish migration to the Americas, which really doesn't help in the matter..

 

[Andrelvis]

Lol, have you ever tried to make an event with sophisticated enough triggers to take care of all the craziness that human players engage in?

It doesn't even have to be that sophisticated. For example, in Johan's classic case of getting a French Revolution event while having a pristine France, a trigger dependent on the country's stability would have done to avoid that situation.

Not to mention that many events in V1 were just straight up straitjacketing nonsense - like the Crimean War.

Yeah, they were - but making better triggers would make them make much more sense regarding context when they fire.

 

[UniversalWolf]

I don't hate sandbox, but I think it makes more sense the longer the timeline. For example, EU3 covers several hundred years, so there's a large possibility to radically alter the historical record without an implausible outcome. In HoI3's window of twenty years or so it makes much less sense because massive derailing of history can destroy the very context and character of what makes that small period of time interesting. Depending on what happens in your sandbox game, WWII might last only two years, or never happen at all. In that case you've got a game dealing with 20 fairly boring years in excruciating detail. And even if it's still interesting, you can't play out a scenario of seeing what happens to history if one outcome is different - like say, the Republicans winning the Spanish Civil War.

Victoria falls somewhere between those two.

 

[unmerged(18239)]

Where?

Waves.....but is aparently alone

 

[unity100]

I don't hate sandbox, but I think it makes more sense the longer the timeline. For example, EU3 covers several hundred years, so there's a large possibility to radically alter the historical record without an implausible outcome. In HoI3's window of twenty years or so it makes much less sense because massive derailing of history can destroy the very context and character of what makes that small period of time interesting. Depending on what happens in your sandbox game, WWII might last only two years, or never happen at all. In that case you've got a game dealing with 20 fairly boring years in excruciating detail.

actually not at all. you forget to account the mobility into question.

before 18th century, military muscle of the countries were less mobile, and it was hard to effect any change through victories, for any victory gave you a small advantage.

towards end of 18th century this changed, and as can be understood from the french revolutionary wars, french was able to affect huge changes in entire europe by occupying and forcing democratic governments. most of them didnt remain after napoleonic era, but, they rooted the principles in.

in ww2, military muscle was far more mobile and effective. germans were able to conquer entire europe in close to 1-2 years, with pauses in between, whereas it took french decades to do.

if axis wasnt beaten, they would have the time to root their changes in, and the world would be wholly different by now.

 

[yourworstnightm]

I'm still interrested what would happen if you as US endorsed slavery. As I remember from Vicky 1 the Civil War pretty much happened wether you endorsed or attacked slavery, the events with the Republican party took care of that, the only way to avoid the Civil War was to have no opinion at all in the slavery debate.

 

[CatKnight]

I think it's fair to say there is a large contingent of 'deterministic' players out there. My evidence is a poll taken in EU3 where people were asked if they played a mod, and if so which.

Vanilla did indeed win. Barely. MM came in a very close second IIRC.

MM is not as deterministic as say EU2 was, but it certainly has its moments. IIRC Muscovy WILL inherit Novgorod, Austria WILL 'diplo'annex some of their historical lands and so forth. The Knights of Rhodes WILL find a new home if you take Rhodes/Malta/the Crab Nebula from them and event-attack Muslim states where they have the opportunity to DoW them. I might have some of the fine details wrong as I haven't been able to do much with MM, but that's the gist.

Vanilla does indeed need to stay sandbox mode. First off, it's very popular. Second, it's the necessary building block that mods will use to make a more historical/deterministic variant. I think if a Russian/Ottoman/etc. player wants to trigger something to the Crimean War it'll be possible....without being forced. Similarly a suitably militant Paraguay probably WOULD alarm its neighbors and start a war - while a more passive one wouldn't.

When EU3 came out, I was worried where this sandbox world would lead us, but now I agree with previous posters. Decisions and event chains help lead the game onto plausible, if not necessarily strictly historical paths. Missions can also help guide you. A little imagination fills in the gaps. As for logic, God knows we players make errors, and the AI can be counted on to do something bizarre. Just like IRL politics.

A LOT can happen in an EU or Vic timeframe, and playing EU2 I definitely ran into moments where an event was nudging me back into a historical path long after it made sense. (My experience with Vic1 was unfortunately short and painful. I'm hoping Vic2 is gentler to me. ) Whether sandbox makes sense in a very short time frame like HOI3 could be a fair question, but not germane to this discussion.

Incidentally EU1, which started this whole ball rolling in the first place, is almost completely sandbox....

 

[wedgeskwalker9]

I've always thought that having a more sandbox environment with the events still in if strict triggers are met is the best way to go.

An example: lets say that Brazil has a civil war over the slavery issue, they would get a generic "Civil War over slavery" event. However, if the same thing happens in America, they get "The American Civil War" event, with a unique description and some unique effects (spawning Lee as a Southern General, giving the Confederacy their historical government, etc.).

 

[CirMag]

It has to be, for magna mundi to have a following. Granted, I haven't actually TRIED MM but they tell me it follows a more deterministic route.

MM follows "historical plausibility". remember that whole AGC vs EEP argument, from EU2, pre AGCEEP?
The goal of MM, seems to be (I'm not a part of it), is to create a system where by which, that which happened, is likely to happen, due to the causes, but to never use scripted events, there are actually a couple scripted, but thats neither here no there.

MM would be a bad example for support of historical determinism, while a great example for support of historical plausibility.

That's actually what I want from Vicky 2. I don't want scripted wars, but I want the causes of real wars, to cause wars. Plausibility and all that.

 

[Andrelvis]

I'm just calling the bluff of the historical-track camp. If you want something changed, something retained, included, inserted, altered, whatever:

What on Earth is it? What events ought to be in? Seriously, I'd like to know.

I mostly want what has already been said will be in, flavor events.