What is With Some People's Obsession with ROTW?

[FreeSoc]

But I would love for that to happen as well. Too bad the black plague is out of the scope in this time period, but other major diseases could be modelled as well. Have them originate somewhere and spread through adjacency and trade routes.

In my ideal version, the world would slowly grow in base tax, only to be occasionally stomped in the head by events like these. You would lose manpower, monarch points and give you events on how you want to handle it.

The plague is not out of the scope in this time period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_plague_pandemic#Recurrence_throughout_Europe

The 1665 epidemic is still fairly well-known in England.

But yeah, I would be OK with the Native Americans suffering from smallpox as long as other countries' populations also suffer horribly from disease occasionally.

 

[unmerged(243999)]

But yeah, I would be OK with the Native Americans suffering from smallpox as long as other countries' populations also suffer horribly from disease occasionally.

Exactly this. It's about not giving even more penalties to the RotW when Europe already outclasses them just fine as it is. Saying all nations have disease and downfalls from time to time is accurate. Saying that the First Nations should die off the moment a European lands on the continent is just more slapping around to those of us who like the idea, nay, the challenge of a Sunset Invasion. There's a line between challenge and pointless brutal penalties, though. And I would like to make sure ROTW stands in the 'challenge' point, just like playing Brandenburg is a bit harder than playing Austria, but both are valid options (hey, BBurg is now even lucky for the AI!)

 

[NoUsernamesHere]

That's actually /exactly/ what it means - this is a game, not a history book. If it's not fun and doesn't add anything to gameplay, it shouldn't exist - which is why it doesn't

But it does exist. Right now, the map of the Americas - from 1444 onwards - represents post-contact America, after diseases have ravaged massive amounts of their population. That's why there are so many little gray "uncolonized" provinces. As a European colonizer, you essentially do just show up and have the natives up and die - we're just skipping the natives "upping" part, and they're just dead in advance. If they were to represent the disease exchange - which they should - it must also include a fleshed out America with a huge number of new entities not currently represented. Additionally, it doesn't have to be as simplistic as "Europe shows up, disease spreads, you die". You can design it in such a way as to have engaging mechanics for managing the spread of disease in post-contact America, and a sufficiently well-managed and/or powerful native entity would be able to weather the disease for a few generations until their population base has built sufficient immunity to Old World diseases and they can fight back against the Europeans in full force.

 

[Koivin]

See, I like that idea; I play Veritas et Fortutido from time to time which does include the Black Death. And I wouldn't mind seeing more of these events - everywhere. But not just to ruin the New World powers when spain shows up. There's a different argument between 'more decisions to make and some mechanics to play around' and 'screw the New World once Spain/Portugal/Burgundy lands there'. I think we'd all like more historical and decision-based events, but this thread is about the idea that Western Europe should effortlessly dominate the ROTW, which I do not agree with.

Yet again, there is this assertion that I somehow side with the opposite extreme side merely because of my support for historical accuracy in the New World (I would gladly support historical accuracy everywhere, but that was not the point). The unneccesary assumption that this argument is polarised and only exists on two extremes is saddening. Why not historical accuracy for all?

Ooooh, lets. I do love a good debate about semantics.
Unparalleled (adj): having no parallel or equal; exceptional.
I would argue that EUIV in its current state doesn't have a parallel or equal in its freedom, depth, or historical accuracy as it really has no competitors that come close; still doesn't make it a historical simulator

Right, let's not. All I can say to this is logic of appropriateness(intentions) /= logic of consequences(outcomes). I look at the former and say that they intend to be that, you rather look at the result and claim that it isn't. These fundamental axioms of our arguments make it impossible for us to agree, so let's not waste our time.

The plague is not out of the scope in this time period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_plague_pandemic#Recurrence_throughout_Europe

The 1665 epidemic is still fairly well-known in England.

But yeah, I would be OK with the Native Americans suffering from smallpox as long as other countries' populations also suffer horribly from disease occasionally.

I was not aware of this. I am all for it. Make it happen Paradox!

 

[Freudia]

I am not sure what you are getting at. You do know that this happened in history? It's not even a random chance either. They were genetically so isolated from the Old World that they could've fallen prey to pretty much any disease. Just because it's not fun doesn't mean it has to be changed. What do you want instead, to have the Spaniards bring paella and siestas?

But should they in the game? Would that be fun for either natives or Europeans? I don't think it would be. Historical accuracy be damned, as this is an instance where it being more historically accurate would actually make the game worse.

Unless we're doing global disease mechanics, but I'm not sure what that would add either, considering population is already abstracted.

Also

(Paradox quote about EU4)

You can't have 'unparalleled freedom' and 'historical accuracy' at the same time, unless they were only talking about DHEs, which are already kind of hit or miss (garbage like the Burgundian Inheritance ignoring everything that historically happened and just firing when Burgundy loses a war, for example).

 

[Gaamel]

Great thread subject. Big peeve of mine.

I'm about to reach 1700 hours (give or take) played in EUIV with, roughly speaking, circa 10 hours spent playing as Hungary (interesting country as it goes) and roughly the same as England and another 10 as Ireland. So call it about 1600+ as ROTW nations or tribes or what-have-you. I'm a proud ROTW player then because in my case and it's utterly a personal view, is that EU is a Hapsburg/hre sim and it boils my carrots. In fact all of PDS big four franchises favour/fantasise over mitteleuropa in some manner when they offer a whole sandbox world to play in, in tandem:

Examples:

• Crusader Kings Charliemange celebrates, after a fashion, a mass murderer belonging to some trumped up polity which existed to piss off the actual Roman empire of the day, that which the base game can't pigeon-hole as a feudal polity but actually tries to. Karling my arse.

• EU series. Hre hre hre hre hapsburg HAP.tga palatinate ulm minigames. I constantly whinge here about the fact that I can't even toggle off the bloody eagle thing that pains my glaucoma as I play Malaya, Arabia or Ming or anything far far away from Hapsburgland. But hm, what is this? The papal icon thingy is not present on-screen. Is Freddy zu Hapsburg XVI more important than a religious leader of millions? Hmm. Looks like. Art of War addresses this silly bias to some extent. It soothes the savage breast in a pleasing manner. Better.

• Vicky. Buy some nice extra Prussian pointy helmet DLC, when other nations besides USA/CSA get tiny tablescrap DLCs because Germany is somehow more important, more mitteleuropa (of course it is) despite not being a massive coloniser nation, the heart, indeed the heart of darkness of Vicky. Don't worry, though, 1914 will come around soon enough. Wear your pointy DLC hat with pride. Ehm ...no. Fin, Vicky is excellent, I submit to her charms. Shame no russian revolution expansion/DLC though. Never mind. And no this is not an anti-german thing; I loved my time in northern Germany and its beautiful women and hearty food.

• Hearts of Iron. Mitteleuropa gone mad. Ww2. Not Paradox's fault that that happened. However, we can't have a Hapsburg sadly, but do have extra nazi pointy tanks DLC and an extra extra pointy gotterdammerung music, UI and tiger tank DLC when other nations get much less. Oh but we did have some nice soviet plane DLC with red stars topside (ugh), an irish coracle and a french motorbike*. Regardless, conquer the world like Charlie von Karling Hapsburg MXVIX would've wanted**.

* I made that up.
** This is turning into a baseless rant.
*** I still love you, PDS.
****

• is over-rated.
  
  We have an EU map full of exotic beach locations, forested tundras, sweltering bone-dry deserts, swathes of hundreds of small islands under Aegean-blue skies with Nations to represent all of them, and yet somehow boring hre in its dismal grey cocoon has more 'value', more 'worth'. No thanks. ROTW for me, ta.
  
  Sincerely, Mudscrub.

• 
  Rofl. It's unlikely we live to see EU4 featuring the true worth of forested tundras, paradise rhum islands and swarming jungles of central Africa (Madagascar divided into 3 slices of cheese is just...disappointing). It's a shame though, that would be very interesting to hire explorers and traders creating trade routes from scratch through uncharted territory.

 

[CzechKronner]

Great thread subject. Big peeve of mine.

I'm about to reach 1700 hours (give or take) played in EUIV with, roughly speaking, circa 10 hours spent playing as Hungary (interesting country as it goes) and roughly the same as England and another 10 as Ireland. So call it about 1600+ as ROTW nations or tribes or what-have-you. I'm a proud ROTW player then because in my case and it's utterly a personal view, is that EU is a Hapsburg/hre sim and it boils my carrots. In fact all of PDS big four franchises favour/fantasise over mitteleuropa in some manner when they offer a whole sandbox world to play in, in tandem:

WALL OF TEXT

Sincerely, Mudscrub.

Europe *WAS* a LOT more important than ROTW during that time period. That's indisputable.

 

[spinoza013]

Travel, attrition, supply - essentially logistics, also the desire and financing of conquest.

These things need to be looked at before everything can be historical.

Essentially a lot of people that bought and play want to paint the map and IRL this simply wasn't possible.

It's the age old question of what rewards you want from a game? At the moment realistic goals and their subsequent rewards probably aren't satisfying enough for a large amount of players.

Personally if I wanted to play a completely ahistorical map painter I wouldn't look past Civ V.

A task like Reforming Italy from a minor nation is usually enough or me. As long as there are enough twists and turns with unforseen events, alliances etc., a satisfying strategic challenge and some recognition of a hard job done well.

Unfortunately these 'smaller' achievements are either too easy or fail to provide a reasonable reward for a lot of players.

This is why you see players divided between those that want more challenge to more realistic but modest goals whilst still maintaining immersion and narrative and those that see those increased challenges get in the way of a broader challenge i.e. beating the game mechanics itself and conquering the map. The latter realise the game isn't a history simulator so aren't as concerned by realism or any sensible narrative; their immersion is in the mechanics and the math.

This is a problem for the game developers as the game gets more popular. Map painters v Story Makers.

 

[ahyangyi]

But I would love for that to happen as well. Too bad the black plague is out of the scope in this time period, but other major diseases could be modelled as well. Have them originate somewhere and spread through adjacency and trade routes.

The black plague was relevant in EU4 timespan.

 

[Taterthomp2]

EU series. Hre hre hre hre hapsburg HAP.tga palatinate ulm minigames. I constantly whinge here about the fact that I can't even toggle off the bloody eagle thing that pains my glaucoma as I play Malaya, Arabia or Ming or anything far far away from Hapsburgland. But hm, what is this? The papal icon thingy is not present on-screen. Is Freddy zu Hapsburg XVI more important than a religious leader of millions? Hmm. Looks like. Art of War addresses this silly bias to some extent. It soothes the savage breast in a pleasing manner. Better.

wellllll


to be fair i notice as korea that its not there. ive never really payed attention to it, so i couldnt tell if it should show up when i discover europe/europe discovers me or not... but at least for now, it doesn't show up... though I'm admittedly farther away than arabia, i don't understand why ming (who has exact same discovered location and religious/tech group 1.8) would see it and korea wouldn't?

 

[Eh up me duck]

It does seem like there's a curious exceptionalism to a lot of people's points. For example they will say "Europe shouldn't be rofflestomping India by 1650". Well okay...but by that point, the European nation in question has already rofflestopped the entirerity of Europe. If I can defeat France, Austria and Bohemia at the same time, why shouldn't I also stomp face against the ROTW?

But no, you can conquer Europe by 1500 but once you step foot in India you're being ahistorical and forcing your Eurocentric view on the world.

 

[spinoza013]

I view it as a sort of EU 'hipsters'.

Haha. EU Hipsters. Nailed it.

"Have you tried the latest Theodoro.? No? It's sooooo coool"

 

[spinoza013]

I want my troops to die of malaria. Does that make me a hipster?

 

[Eh up me duck]

I want my troops to die of malaria. Does that make me a hipster?

Malaria is so 1703. It's all about ebola now.

 

[anomanderus]

It's the same as the Crusader Kings argument, kind of

Europe is already the focus of the game, just as Britain is the central player in Victoria and Catholic Europe the central force in Crusader Kings

The existence of a central focus of the game however doesn't justify totally ignoring countries and continents which are not the central player, and improving those countries and continents to have a fighting chance against the overwhelming power of Europe can make for a better game since you'll be less likely to have Spain and Portugal taking over all of Africa for no reason

There is literally no way to justify creating a dozen games like "India Universalis" "China Universalis" "American Indian Universalis" when you can just improve their gameplay and depth in Europa Universalis and have it all right here

 

[Taterthomp2]

I want my troops to die of malaria. Does that make me a hipster?

No... That makes you...

Eccentric.

In an MP game, someone was playing tuscany, had gotten a..what do you call it... forced protector leader guy...

lord protector? the initial lifelong 'monarch' that happnes at really low rep tradition?

welllll he died, and his next in line was a 0 legitimacy king with 1,1,1 who was 12...


so once that guy aged up

he tried EVERYTHING to kill that ruler

(he already had terrible legitimacy anyways, like 0 because regency + change to monarchy recent)

well anyways he got a flu event, and made it spread, he sent 1stacks into constant battle in tirol against austrian 25k stack (a human player who was trying to 'help' him lol)

the king lived for another like 20 years before dying as a result of nothing we had any control over, and the guy eventually gave up and started using his huge tax base to pay for advisors and not support standing army or navy XD... but yeah... it was definitely, one of the more UNIQUE setof gameplay choices ive seen in MP experiences.

 

[atwix]

Haha epic thread. I have also always wondered why some seem so overly enthusiastic about rotw.

I view it as a sort of EU 'hipsters'. They only play obscure, small nations and think of big European powers as "mainstream".

"Yeah, I actually only play as a small tribe in Mesoamerica, everything else is just so generic dude. I dont play the game like they WANT me to play it, Im not conformist."

read until this post.

Europe gets boring once you know the region mechanics. If you start learning game as France, then play a big HRE nation, then an OPM, then maybe OPM vassal like Foix and still conquer entire europe, it DOES get generic.

I'm now doing a 1.8 yaroslavl run, since I needed a challenge. West Europe is just..too easy after a while.

You say: I view it as a sort of EU 'hipsters'. They only play obscure, small nations and think of big European powers as "mainstream".


I guess it is what happens if you beat the game ten times as any western europe nation. Call me hipster, but i DO need obscure small nations to give me challenge. EU4 gets boring quickly without a challenge.

Anyways, people agreeing ROTW people are weird: play 300-1000+ hours in Europe and you will eventually see the light.

One example to conclude: what would you watch on youtube.. A player getting great Khan achievement with Mongolia, or a Burgundy--->Netherlands game? Thought so. And then people say ROTW folks are weird

 

[AlphaNarwhal]

Because honestly the Eurocentrist parts of this game are trash. I want to play a historical grand strategy game, not a Stormfront make belief fantasy that shits all over history.

But historically, Europe WAS dominant in this timeframe
That's not a fantasy or racist, it's true. Sometimes the truth is unfair.

 

[spinoza013]

American History X

 

[CzechKronner]

Call me hipster, but i DO need obscure small nations to give me challenge. EU4 gets boring quickly without a challenge.

Do you have all the achievements?

Nope?
I thought so.