Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

About Fantasy/Optional Events...

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Jools

Jools

My hovercraft is full of eels
8 Badges
Jun 30, 2001
1.244
0
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
About Fantasy and Optional Events...

Please DON'T start a new thread everytime you feel an event is worthless, biased or just crap. Many people worked hard on them and they are called FANTASY for a certain reason. If you don't like them you have the option of not installing them with your EEP, and in fact, you have the option of not installing them at all.

So for all you trolls/people with different point of view on the subject please DON'T CLOG UP THE FORUM with new threads (it's already becoming messy, if you haven't noticed) just start a new topic on the Regional Threads or Individual Country Project threads. This will help organisation and will make this place a generally more cleaner place.

I kindly ask a mod to stick this if he deems it worthy and to kindly lock the on going discussion in the WRONG threads.

Remember people, this is not the OT and don't count on increasing your post count to BiB and Idiotboy levels thinking no one will notice all the spam...

Jools Weevil Jr.,
Wild enthusiast of the EEP Forum and the EEP itself...
 
1. Wouldnt it be more problematic/antagonistic to hijack/attack the thread run by the people you are criticizing?

2. Optional doesnt mean immune to criticism. Neither does Fantasy.

3. Trolls = people who dont agree with you?

4. How can discussions of events in the EEP forum be OT?

5. Which is cleaner? Separate threads addressing separate topics or one thread addressing multiple topics? I vote for option 2.

6. I think this thread is counter-productive, unnecessary, and just plain wrong. It is an obvious response to my thread on Byzantium.

7. I am a troll since I disagree with you.
 
I agree wholeheartedly that people should not be starting threads to raise concerns about individual events. On the other hand I think it would be wildly inappropriate for questions about the philosophy and scope of what everyone is doing on the EEP to be buried in one regional or national thread. These issues should have more visibility so that people will at least be aware of them.
 
Originally posted by ryoken69
1. Wouldnt it be more problematic/antagonistic to hijack/attack the thread run by the people you are criticizing?

2. Optional doesnt mean immune to criticism. Neither does Fantasy.

3. Trolls = people who dont agree with you?

4. How can discussions of events in the EEP forum be OT?

5. Which is cleaner? Separate threads addressing separate topics or one thread addressing multiple topics? I vote for option 2.

6. I think this thread is counter-productive, unnecessary, and just plain wrong. It is an obvious response to my thread on Byzantium.

7. I am a troll since I disagree with you.
Click to expand...

I am just kindly asking you not to start a new thread everytime something bugs you and I agree with you since I dont use the Byzantine EEP (I used it once, it was fun but I prefer to leave it)
 
Originally posted by ryoken69
I got enough heat in my own thread. Imagine if I posted in theirs!
Click to expand...

It isn't about my/their thread. It's about having a general sense of order. There are so many threads I'm just afraid that newcomers will get lost.
 
The way I see it, if it is a un-important topic, it will quickly slide behind the big boys. There is only a few threads in this forum anyway, so I dont see a problem. Perhaps if we had page after page of threads, it would be.
 
Originally posted by ryoken69
The way I see it, if it is a un-important topic, it will quickly slide behind the big boys. There is only a few threads in this forum anyway, so I dont see a problem. Perhaps if we had page after page of threads, it would be.
Click to expand...

why not prevent this now?
 
Originally posted by ryoken69

2. Optional doesnt mean immune to criticism. Neither does Fantasy.
Click to expand...

No, but it does mean that any critism that's based on "I don't this because it's unhistorical" is null and void. If it's optional, then you shouldn't complain that it's part of EEP and if it's fantasy, you shouldn't complain that it's not historical.

Now, if the criticism is along the lines of "this event needs tweaking here, that event is unfair/unbalanced" etc etc, well, I'm sure everyone will welcome your comments.
 
Originally posted by dunkel

Now, if the criticism is along the lines of "this event needs tweaking here, that event is unfair/unbalanced" etc etc, well, I'm sure everyone will welcome your comments.
Click to expand...
But if the criticism is that the scope for fantasy events in the EEP ought to be limited there needs to be a way to discuss that rather than just say 'it's not historical so you can't complain'
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock

But if the criticism is that the scope for fantasy events in the EEP ought to be limited there needs to be a way to discuss that rather than just say 'it's not historical so you can't complain'
Click to expand...

point is you can't judge fantasy events by historic standards... fantasy events are usaually balanced and well thought of, if you don't agree, at least with the Byzantine events, go to the Byz EEP and say that. Don't start a whole new thread complaining about two parallel things.
 
Surely the question is broader than that. Where should the EEP project be drawing the line in conjectural events? This is by no means specific to Byzantine or Lenape events, but is a question about the scope of the project. There is a case to be made on either side. This sort of discussion should certainly not be on the Byzantine thread, where I think it's safe to assume people prefer a broader scope for the EEP than people who frequent different parts of the board.
 
Yeah. People keep thinking that I am just talking about Byzantium. I am talking about any events which are conjectural in nature, regardless on nation. I would be arguing against "what-if the Duchy of Athens conquered the Balkans" events if they existed. It just so happens Byzantium is the the first real effort to make conjectural events, so I spoke out. My thread has much less to do with Byzantium than people think. Byzantine events are the example of the trend I am against. I think it is ridiculous that people want to suppress even debating this topic.
 
I am very much in favor of conjectural events and speculation. To a certain extent, such is unavoidable in any analysis of history.

Come on, haven't you ever wanted to experiment and see what if? e.g. what if the Catholic Guise faction prevailed over Henry of Navarre? (Not that I would have wanted them to, but you get the point...)

I think the EEP has done the right thing by including them. I also think the EEP had done the right thing by making the more speculative events an optional download. If those particular events (BYZ, BUR, or otherwise) were not optional or if it was likely that the AI would take the ahistorical path more often (i.e. having ahistorical choice as A), then I would see more of a reason to have this discussion.
As it is, it would be wrong to attempt to suppress the speculative work that others are very interested in doing, when it does not affect your own work or your own game if you choose not to download the optional events.

As Isaac Brock said, I think the question should be, where do you draw the line?

Personally, I don't know if anything I contribute here will be included in the EEP or not. I am not overly concerned either way. If someone sees my events, and wants to try it out, that is great, if not, that's O.K. too.
 
Just posted this in the thread this thread is talking about. It belongs here too.

_______________________________________

It is unreasonable to have ahistorical events when there are no historical events to draw on? YES. Why? Bias and the Unknowable. Who is to say that Byzantium wouldnt have embraced Protestantism? Or Reformed Protestantism? Who is to say that if they stuck around, Austria-Hungary would have formed to combat the Turks. A weakened Ottoman Empire could have led to a strengthened Mamluks, Persia, etc. Byzantium's existence would certainly have had effects on Russia, who will code that? And what about colonialism? If Byzantium existed, it might have colonized something somewhere. Who knows?

And that is the problem. No one knows. Once you take a few steps away from history, predicting what "would have happened" becomes IMPOSSIBLE. Human relations are too complex and misunderstood to possibly predict those kinds of things. Not even Byzantine experts
could know.
 
Originally posted by ryoken69
And that is the problem. No one knows. Once you take a few steps away from history, predicting what "would have happened" becomes IMPOSSIBLE. Human relations are too complex and misunderstood to possibly predict those kinds of things. Not even Byzantine experts
could know.
Click to expand...

Well, that is actually the point isn't it? It is also part of what this sometimes rather funny game does for us, provides us with quite a few "what if" scenarios.

Why in the hell would I ever bother to play it as a game if I knew that every single time, not matter what, I would e.g. loose the battle of Agincourt. Why take the trouble? That would make a very poor game, but a very good history book. Now which is it that we want here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back