Why does Paradox keep saying their historical grand strategy games aren't about war?

[Kyoumen]

Your comment was "Is there ever an instance of a war happening because of something that isn't state policy?"

A war that happens in direct contradiction of the state's policy qualifies. I would also note there are plenty of places and times where war happens in the absence of or entirely perpendicular to state structures (for example, the constant low level warfare that characterised inland New Guinean society, un-organised steppe warfare, etc). There are also wars that are functionally individual power struggles for control of the state or aspects of it, like Sulla and Gaius Marius or Caesar marching on Rome.

You can try to wrap those all up into one thing but at that point the word "state" in your original comment ceases to have any meaning.

 

[paulatreides0]

Your comment was "Is there ever an instance of a war happening because of something that isn't state policy?"

A war that happens in direct contradiction of the state's policy qualifies. I would also note there are plenty of places and times where war happens in the absence of or entirely perpendicular to state structures (for example, the constant low level warfare that characterised inland New Guinean society, un-organised steppe warfare, etc). There are also wars that are functionally individual power struggles for control of the state or aspects of it, like Sulla and Gaius Marius or Caesar marching on Rome.

You can try to wrap those all up into one thing but at that point the word "state" in your original comment ceases to have any meaning.

Frankly I don't care, in this context it's a trivial distinction. A man who is able to capture and hold territory and is able to muster and maintain military forces by which to establish and maintain their will is an entity like a state in basically all relevant contexts here. Whether it's a warband or an empire or a bunch of rebels.

But if it really bothers you then just ignore the "state" part entirely, as Clausewitz' definition of war and its causes isn't even particularly dependent on that.

The original context of the post was that Clausewitz' claim about all war being the continuation of diplomacy by other means (in this case raised in the context of states and also because V3 fundamentally models basically everything as a state in one way or another), but as shown by the Clausewitz quote, Clausewitz' didn't even particularly care to differentiate war from individual duels, and saw it merely as any practice of violence by one party to enforce their will upon another.

 

[Kyoumen]

Frankly I don't care, in this context it's a trivial distinction. A man who is able to capture and hold territory and is able to muster and maintain military forces by which to establish and maintain their will is an entity like a state in basically all relevant contexts here. Whether it's a warband or an empire or a bunch of rebels.

But if it really bothers you then just ignore the "state" part entirely, as Clausewitz' definition of war and its causes isn't even particularly dependent on that.

Not all wars are about capturing and holding territory, either. In fact in a great many conflicts "holding the ground" was functionally irrelevant (the Byzantines and Muslims spent literal centuries in ongoing wars where neither side attempted to gain any ground since that wasn't anyone's objective, yet the Byzantines organised the entire military infrastructure of Anatolia around this).

When you say all distinctions are trivial, then you get to the point where you're not actually saying anything meaningful at all.

 

[paulatreides0]

Not all wars are about capturing and holding territory, either.

I never claimed that they were were (nor does Clausewitz). I said that any entity CAPABLE of capturing or holding territory or marshalling and controlling military forces is, so far as is relevant here, tantamount or equivalent to a state. Which is also why my earlier posts said not just a state, but a state *or* a a state-like entity.

In Clausewitz' formulation of war the goals of the war are irrelevant, as are who is fighting it (regardless of how large small, organized or disorganized) only that goals a) exist, and b) are being pressed upon the opposing party through violence.

In fact in a great many conflicts "holding the ground" was functionally irrelevant (the Byzantines and Muslims spent literal centuries in ongoing wars where neither side attempted to gain any ground since that wasn't anyone's objective, yet the Byzantines organised the entire military infrastructure of Anatolia around this)

. . . okay? I never said that war was intrinsically, or even primarily, about capturing or holding territory?

When you say all distinctions are trivial, then you get to the point where you're not actually saying anything meaningful at all.

No, I said they're not meaningful *in this context*. Because they aren't, because Clausewitz literally defines war through analogy and extension of a duel, as basically ANY use of violence by one party on another to achieve a set of objectives - size and the particular organization of the parties or how they conduct their violence is immaterial to his encapsulation of conflict and war. This is one of the main distinctions between Clausewitz and his contemporaries and competitors like Jomini (who, by contrast, rather laboriously tries to classify different "types" of war depending on who was fighting it and how it was/should be fought, and thus tried to impose rules and constraints by which to conduct it).

 

[Kyoumen]

And what goals are being pressed on the opposing party via violence in the case of, say, constant low level warfare such as exhibited by New Guinea highlanders or other places where endemic low level tribal warfare happened?

Also, again, this dilutes the meaning down to "war is anything pursued by any amount of people using some sort of violence", which is pretty far removed from "Is there ever an instance of a war happening because of something that isn't state policy?"

The answer remains "yes, plenty" by any meaningful definition of "state policy".

 

[Bezborg]

Victoria 3 Game Director:

"The main reason is simply that Victoria 3 is a game primarily focused on Economy, Diplomacy and Politics (Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #22 - The Concept of War)

You gotta love this though, “focus on diplomacy” and we have, like, 6 options and a flat -100 default acceptance malus that makes most of those 6 options impossible for the majority of the game, for the majority of the nations in the game. Such sophistication. Not even guarantees of independence or neutrality mechanics, nothing at all.

 

[StenKilla]

Because when the primary objective of many of the major powers of the period was to avoid the disruptions of a proper war, a far more important problem was how to project your force without triggering destabilizing conflicts.

Well this game fails completely then. Looks at France and UK going on a rampage with 300k troops in Africa

 

[StenKilla]

You gotta love this though, “focus on diplomacy” and we have, like, 6 options and a flat -100 default acceptance malus that makes most of those 6 options impossible for the majority of the game, for the majority of the nations in the game. Such sophistication. Not even guarantees of independence or neutrality mechanics, nothing at all.

This tbh. Took me decades to improve relations to accept a friggin trade deal. Its just so basic and black and white. Diplo plays are either give up or go to war. No negotiation. No communication between powers. Each European power is like living in its own bubble

 

[paulatreides0]

And what goals are being pressed on the opposing party via violence in the case of, say, constant low level warfare such as exhibited by New Guinea highlanders or other places where endemic low level tribal warfare happened?

It can be literally anything. Be it prestige, or raiding for goods, or a blood feud, or asserting dominance, or whatever. Clausewitz literally doesn't care as long as its one entity forcing its will on another through violence. Clausewitz' point is that war does not happen in isolation and that it always has some goal or intention. That war does not spontaneously and sporadically break out for no reason. His argument is that war, like duels (and by extension all forms of organized violence), is done for a purpose by one party against another.

Also, again, this dilutes the meaning down to "war is anything pursued by any amount of people using some sort of violence", which is pretty far removed from "Is there ever an instance of a war happening because of something that isn't state policy?"

The answer remains "yes, plenty" by any meaningful definition of "state policy".

Yes because that is literally how Clausewitz defined war. And even his thought-rivals (at least the ones who survive with any relevance) like Jomini didn't push him on that - who instead sought to categorize war into different buckets and rule-ify it (which Clausewitz would have hated for a whole host of other reasons,).

 

[MadLane]

simple, because game devs make mistakes, remember that call of duty in space? or where they could jump into walls and parkour? no? understandable why would you, they made a mistake and never made a game like that, Paradox is trying something I guess not sure why experiments have to be such opposites but whatever their game their choices, player retention will as always speak the truth.

 

[Anglican]

simple, because game devs make mistakes, remember that call of duty in space? or where they could jump into walls and parkour? no? understandable why would you, they made a mistake and never made a game like that, Paradox is trying something I guess not sure why experiments have to be such opposites but whatever their game their choices, player retention will as always speak the truth.

No one is perfect and everyone is capable of making mistakes but the question is are you willing to part your hard earned money just so devs can make their "early access" project a reality and part more money so that they can fully realized that. For a game that isn't focused on "war" other options aside from trading are utterly limited. There is a severe lack of flavour once you played 2 countries that they feel the same (I've played Philippines, Japan, Haiti, Persia and Greece) that you'd have to wait flavour packs to even enjoy. I'm just saying that the game has got both good and bad in it and it's going to take a lot more of these "experiments" to get to an acceptable level. The question is however will Paradox stay for the long course or are they going to abandon the "experiment" just like Imperator Rome.

 

[Taikō]

Because it gives them an excuse not to work on it.

 

[LAF1994]

The elephants in the room (World War One and the American Civil War) seem curiously absent from the more strident defences of this game's approach to war. I actually remember my initial reaction to the news that war would be automated based on "front lines", I thought it would make sense for World War One (before I discovered one of the more comical aspects - the province by province hopscotch over the map) but make no sense for the ACW, which I'd suspected would get a least a little love.

Or the Taiping Rebellion, which had a higher body count than either.

 

[EarlKonrad]

It's watered down from nothing. Whatever description you make of CK2's war system it is as simple and straightforward as it gets. Raise levies, hire mercs, deathstack the enemy. Repeat.

That's the sort of reductionist description that can be applied to any system. Hell, it can even be applied to whole games.

By that logic CK is a game where you: make an heir, die, repeat.

 

[Delterius]

How do you progress if you can never wage war, holy wars allow quick expansion, marriage takes a generation, inevitable rebellions will bring about war

What are you talking about? You wage war in CK. However there's absolutely nothing much to it. It's not a deep war game.

 

[Delterius]

That's the sort of reductionist description that can be applied to any system.

Not to chess, total war or age of empires. Not to any tactical war game. Not even to Civ V and VI despite how bad the Ai is at playing them. Crusader Kings is just not one of those.

 

[EarlKonrad]

Not to chess, total war or age of empires. Not to any tactical war game. Not even to Civ V and VI despite how bad the Ai is at playing them. Crusader Kings is just not one of those.

Chess: move piece, eat piece, check.
Total War: improve city, build army, conquer city, repeat.
Age of Empires: build economy, train units, beat enemy.
Civ: settle city, research tech, build settler, settle city, build army, conquer city.

Again, if you want to paint a game in a bad light you can reduce its gameplay loop to its barest of bones and use it to show how -insert negative comment here- it is.

 

[Delterius]

Chess: move piece, eat piece, check.
Total War: improve city, build army, conquer city, repeat.
Age of Empires: build economy, train units, beat enemy.
Civ: settle city, research tech, build settler, settle city, build army, conquer city.

Nonsense, each of them. First of all I'm not describing the entirety of Crusader Kings in a simplistic manner. Only it's war system. Because it is simple. It is quite telling that you have no recourse against this fact aside from pretending it is possible to describe Chess as a game lacking in complex tactics.

The complication in Crusader Kings arises from it's political and rpg mechanics. Keeping the realm together. Having the right commanders of the right culture. Having the right demesne. Scheming and cajoling other characters. That sort of thing. Not 'bringing the levies together' or 'pressing the hire mercenaries button'. If I wanted to paint CK in a bad light I'd pretend that war was it's focus. It isn't, which is why I love it.

 

[Cymsdale]

By that logic CK is a game where you: make an heir, die, repeat.

It kinda is though, lol.

 

[kawamuratc]

It kinda is though, lol.

Exactly! If I had to oversimplify for comedy (or condescending) reasons, that’s how I’d describe CK. War would not be even considered.

As the OP would say, it’s demonstrable proof *

But really, the idea that a computer program struggles to model hundreds of capable human players isn’t that hard to believe and the devs clearly do their best (within constraint of time/resources) to tweak the illusion so the games are fun.

But who really knows? Maybe the patch notes, updates and accompaning DDs discussing the challenge to AI tweaking are all fake and we’re all unknowingly downloading ASCII cat pictures. And if so, the real question is: where are they? I want to see them.

*it is not