Does Paradox consider geo-politics when designing their grand strategy games?

[wickermoon]

Hi,

this is probably a strange question to ask, but I've been reading Tim Marshall's "Prisoners of Geography" lately and it made me itch to play some EU4 (though I'm not too fond of that game since Rights of Man). Especially since I wanted to see whether his theories/statements hold true and whether I can use them to my advantage. So, having read the first chapter of the book - which is all about russia - I started up a new muscovy game.

Anyway, I was wondering: When paradox designs game mechanics, or AI, for any of their grand strategy games, do you guys ever consider geo-politics? I've gotten the slight feeling that this topic is far too often overlooked in any strategy game, whether it be Total War (duh), any P'Dox Strategy game or anyone else's. I found the reasoning in this book to be quite convincing, but the AI only seldomly seems to adhere to the same reasoning. Maybe considering these topics would/could improve the ai in general?

Ah well, I was just wondering and would really like to know if you ever considered geo politics as a thing in your GSGs.

 

[Knuf Wons]

There are definitely some considerations made. For example, the idea system In EU4 develops somewhat organically. There are a few nations STRONGLY encouraged to take specific ideas but for the most part how large the country is and what its political situation is determine how the AI picks idea groups.
I'm not particularly familiar with large-scale theories on geopolitics but I hope this helps answer your question.

 

[Badesumofu]

It would help if you briefly outlined what the reasoning in the book that you're referring to is.

 

[fr-rein]

About that - to a certain degrees states are. But not necessarily. For example, English tried to explore Siberia and get a few colonies, but Russia cut the sea communication there while killing an independent Russian colony of Mangazeya.

And I can answer something specifically about Russia in EU4: it is bad.
And I don't mean the state itself (which got nicely uplifted in Third Rome ImPack), but the Eastern Europe as a whole. It is simply poorly modelled.

As one of the examples of poor modelling - as Russia it makes sense to expand to the India instead of getting Siberia and Ruthenia. While in real life, the steppe Hordes remained a huge threat to the people, threatening borders and prosperity, and it took centuries to safely reclaim space up to Caucasus.
Another thing is that Ukraine has one of the most inaccurate and trashy provinces like Cherkasy in whole Europe with no development. All while nearby Horde steppes (where there is still really not much even today, mostly steppes and fields) are way more developed for the reasons known only to devs. As a conclusion, in EU4 fetching Lithuania is more profitable and reasonable from any perspective. And Cossacks aren't doing what they should as well. Not to mention that because of many things early fights/alliances with Ottomans are looking odd as Russia expands to the south too early usually, being quite weak and unable to fight Ottos.
Eastern Europe as a whole is still quite neglected. Some quintessential things lack. I made a few suggestions, but probably no one cares the region for now.

 

[aono]

Ah well, I was just wondering and would really like to know if you ever considered geo politics as a thing in your GSGs.

Missions, sir.