It would be fun to see the AI manage that once in a while.Fiftypence said:I won the US Civil War as Mexico. Large swathes of western and southern American territory was a sweet, pointless prize.
-
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.
I wish the historical outcome would always happen as long as the Human player has not changed anything.
Nah, I like to think things could easily have turned out differently than they did, and so long as the historical outcome is the most probable, then personally I like the way things can vary from what really happened.SeanB said:
Anyway, it's nice to see some variation.
That would require heavy scripting and coding that would create a whole different game that would be unplayable.SeanB said:
Jayavarman said:That would require heavy scripting and coding that would create a whole different game that would be unplayable.
Not unplayable, but it's true it couldn't be an expansion, it would need to be a whole different game. Infact, I don't think it's doable with current technology.
It's not doable with the current state of historical science Victoria is a very abstracted game. All the factors that disappear from the equations have to come in as luck and random events. Now, as you include more factors to constrain the actors, the simulation would follow history more closely (and become progressively less popular with the players), but then you'd have another problem - whose version of history to follow? There are as many opinions on any given matter as there are historians. History is not like physics, where you can make a theory to fit the data. In history, there are no controlled experiments and all observations are hopelessly flawed and one-sided. And then you have to consider that the world may not necessarily be deterministic...
Well, you get the point. You don't want a game that turns out 100% "historical" without a human player
Victoria is a very abstracted game. All the factors that disappear from the equations have to come in as luck and random events. Now, as you include more factors to constrain the actors, the simulation would follow history more closely (and become progressively less popular with the players), but then you'd have another problem - whose version of history to follow? There are as many opinions on any given matter as there are historians. History is not like physics, where you can make a theory to fit the data. In history, there are no controlled experiments and all observations are hopelessly flawed and one-sided. And then you have to consider that the world may not necessarily be deterministic...Well, you get the point. You don't want a game that turns out 100% "historical" without a human player