War of the Triple Alliance

[unity100]

I have a beef with deterministic crowd's 'plausible' historical understanding.

many of what happened throughout history were not 'plausible' or rational at all.

hungarians turned catholic in early middle ages because their monarch decided there was more short term political gain for them to do so. early russians turned orthodox both due to byzantine missionaries, but also because it was more politically profitable for them to do so. both changes were effected by the whim of the ruler reigning in that nation at that time.

Fast forward to late 17th century for an excellent example ; Prince Eugene, if you push it a bit, single handedly destroyed XIV. Louis's dreams of mega France. Ironically, had Louis not capriciously refused him because Eugene's mother was 'out of favor' with his court, the whole world history would have been a lot different now. Not to mention, If eugene wasnt around, there would be no karlowitz, s. hungary may have remained ottoman for a long time, and Russians may not be able to hammer on a weakened ottoman military in early 18th century and gain lots of ground, politically and provincially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Eugene_of_Savoy

its a mighty good read, i recommend it.

so, history is actually capricious, wanton, changing on a whim, and generally bullsh@t. with just one second's passing thought in some prominent figure's mind, everything easily changed.

it is beyond illogical to talk of 'plausible' historical outcomes and behave deterministically. because history is everything but those.

 

[UniversalWolf]

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

I think you missed my meaning. My fault, I'm sure, for not explaining it clearly. Mobility of armies doesn't have anything to do with what I was trying to say.

When you play a game that spans centuries, it makes sense for the player to have a wide latitude of action and the ability to alter history to a radical degree. When you play a game focused on two decades, there simply isn't enough time to make radical alteration plausible, or even desirable.

If I'm playing EU3, I might say, "Let's see if I can restore the Byzantine Empire." It's a huge undertaking, and whether or not the Teutonic Order forms Prussia while I'm attempting it is neither here nor there. I would never have that as a goal in HoI3, though. There just isn't time, and it isn't what the game is about. Rather, I would say something like, "What would happen if Hitler invaded the Soviet Union through Turkey?" I still want the rest of the game to unfold largely along historical lines though, because if the USA joins the Axis, it destroys or at least muddles the effect of the alteration the player wants to make on the history.

Here's another example. In a game of EU3, it's not absurd or unusual for the player to decide he wants to turn one of the major players into a different kind of state from what existed historically. You could form Russia as a republic, and play it as a trading empire, for example. How many HoI3 players decide they want to change Germany into a democracy, or align Germany with the Allies? I don't even know whether that's possible, but if it is, there's no point to it. HoI3 is a game about WW2, and there would be no WW2 under those circumstances. If Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia don't end up going to war at some point, you're in for a very boring two decades.

 

[unmerged(52731)]

just had to post

I for one like the direction they are going, it being a game, I hate being forced down a certain path. From the moment you unpause the game at the beginning, things go down a new path. Its better to work with that fact than against it.

 

[OHgamer]

Thread closed. We do not need any more of these generic determinist vs plausible debates, unless it relates directly to actual or planned gameplay mechanics in Victoria 2. The broader debate has run its course and, as such, is a dead horse that doen not need to be beaten into any more of a bloody pulp than it already has become.