Well, ok, Paradox Interactive is a company. So their primary objective is to make money.
Their product is games. So, their secondary objective is to make great games, that many people want to buy.
Their core games are historic simulations. And, if we look at the development and DLC's, it seems their tertiary objective is to make games that replicate history.
If you, as player, do nothing, each and every event should replicate history as it has happened. And you, as player, shouldn't be allowed to change that much.
Or, in other words: if you play, say, CK2 or EU4, they really want all the rulers and countries to do exactly the same they have done in history.
Which might be commendable, but I do have some problems with that.
For starters, they tend to reduce the options of the player with each update. Because the player is too random a factor.
And second, they add options that make history as we know it more likely. Which is very cool, as it increases our options. Except that they started to reduce those options as well, to make it more fitting.
So, what I have seen so far, suggests very strongly, that Paradox doesn't really care about player options, but does care about all options and paths leading to history as we know it.
Think about that. If we could turn back time a thousand years, The System would make sure history would commence as it did the first time. There is a company that patrols Time, and makes rules all the time to make sure History won't diverge from it's Chosen Path.
Either we, the players, get the freedom to play the part of that historical ruler as we please, or we should classify the "games" as movies. No interaction allowed.
Of course, we want the games to be pleasing to play. And, as they are historic, it's fine if we are limited to what those rulers could do. Focus and priorities.
Some rulers focused on military expansion, and so they made their army their main priority. Their subjects didn't have much to eat, because that food was needed for the army.
Other rulers prioritized diplomacy and trade (economics). Most of them in the later history. They gave the people food, and bought out generals before they became enemies and started a military campaign against them.
Focus and priorities. What you can do is limited, but you can decide where and how your resources are spent.
In CK2 and EU4, there is none of that. You can do it all, but the resources you can spend on anything are limited. If you want to spend them all on a single focus, you cannot. Because there is a (very low) maximum You Shall Not Pass!!
So, either waste most, or do a bit of everything. Those are your options. There are no priorities, and there is no focus.
It's a ridiculous model and it is getting a worse simulation with each update. But, of course, more historical accurate.
Their product is games. So, their secondary objective is to make great games, that many people want to buy.
Their core games are historic simulations. And, if we look at the development and DLC's, it seems their tertiary objective is to make games that replicate history.
If you, as player, do nothing, each and every event should replicate history as it has happened. And you, as player, shouldn't be allowed to change that much.
Or, in other words: if you play, say, CK2 or EU4, they really want all the rulers and countries to do exactly the same they have done in history.
Which might be commendable, but I do have some problems with that.
For starters, they tend to reduce the options of the player with each update. Because the player is too random a factor.
And second, they add options that make history as we know it more likely. Which is very cool, as it increases our options. Except that they started to reduce those options as well, to make it more fitting.
So, what I have seen so far, suggests very strongly, that Paradox doesn't really care about player options, but does care about all options and paths leading to history as we know it.
Think about that. If we could turn back time a thousand years, The System would make sure history would commence as it did the first time. There is a company that patrols Time, and makes rules all the time to make sure History won't diverge from it's Chosen Path.
Either we, the players, get the freedom to play the part of that historical ruler as we please, or we should classify the "games" as movies. No interaction allowed.
Of course, we want the games to be pleasing to play. And, as they are historic, it's fine if we are limited to what those rulers could do. Focus and priorities.
Some rulers focused on military expansion, and so they made their army their main priority. Their subjects didn't have much to eat, because that food was needed for the army.
Other rulers prioritized diplomacy and trade (economics). Most of them in the later history. They gave the people food, and bought out generals before they became enemies and started a military campaign against them.
Focus and priorities. What you can do is limited, but you can decide where and how your resources are spent.
In CK2 and EU4, there is none of that. You can do it all, but the resources you can spend on anything are limited. If you want to spend them all on a single focus, you cannot. Because there is a (very low) maximum You Shall Not Pass!!
So, either waste most, or do a bit of everything. Those are your options. There are no priorities, and there is no focus.
It's a ridiculous model and it is getting a worse simulation with each update. But, of course, more historical accurate.
Last edited:
