On Favoring User Enjoyment Over Historical Accuracy.

[Sharp163]

First of all, let me just say that I am incredibly satisfied with Europa Universalis 4. I've seen it come a long way, and am quite proud to have over 800 hours on it

However, I've noticed that there are certain things in the game which stray from historical accuracy in order to make it more enjoyable for the player. For example, the regrouping of certain cultures (especially the Celtic group, which used to consist of Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and Brittany, as it should, and now consists of Ireland and Wales after a recent update. Scotland and Brittany have been regrouped to the English and French culture groups, respectively, as I'm sure many of you have noticed. Another notable example would be the fact that Andalusian culture is considered to be in the Iberian group, when it in fact held many cultural ties to the nations of the Maghreb.). I understand that it pleases many people to not have the "different culture" modifier, but it is not accurate.

Another very prominent issue I've noticed is the lack of certain historical personal unions. For example, under the reign of Charles V von Habsburg, he presided over the kingdoms of Spain and Austria at the same time. Therefore, shouldn't Spain and Austria be under a personal union during his reign (c. 1550)? I understand that this would shatter the balance of the game, however there can be a series of events to show his abdication, or some other option, which would certainly be more favorable than distorting historical accuracy.

The final point I would like to bring up is the (historically accurate) war that occurred between The Ottoman Empire and Albania in 1444, a war which lasted over 25 years. This war was still occurring when the game's campaign begins, and therefore the Ottomans and Albanians should be at war in 1444, as they used to be up to a certain update. This can be simply balanced by giving Albania better traditions, boosting Skanderbeg, or giving a sequence of events to give their armies more power temporarily.

Thank you for your time. I hope that we can fix these minor issues after all, a game of its type should strive for as complete historical starting scenarios as possible

TLDR: there have been many recent updates that have been straying from historical accuracy, in favor of balancing the game.

 

[Clausewitz_]

First of all, let me just say that I am incredibly satisfied with Europa Universalis 4. I've seen it come a long way, and am quite proud to have over 800 hours on it

However, I've noticed that there are certain things in the game which stray from historical accuracy in order to make it more enjoyable for the player. For example, the regrouping of certain cultures (especially the Celtic group, which used to consist of Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and Brittany, as it should, and now consists of Ireland and Wales after a recent update. Scotland and Brittany have been regrouped to the English and French culture groups, respectively, as I'm sure many of you have noticed. Another notable example would be the fact that Andalusian culture is considered to be in the Iberian group, when it in fact held many cultural ties to the nations of the Maghreb.). I understand that it pleases many people to not have the "different culture" modifier, but it is not accurate.

Another very prominent issue I've noticed is the lack of certain historical personal unions. For example, under the reign of Charles V von Habsburg, he presided over the kingdoms of Spain and Austria at the same time. Therefore, shouldn't Spain and Austria be under a personal union during his reign (c. 1550)? I understand that this would shatter the balance of the game, however there can be a series of events to show his abdication, or some other option, which would certainly be more favorable than distorting historical accuracy.

The final point I would like to bring up is the (historically accurate) war that occurred between The Ottoman Empire and Albania in 1444, a war which lasted over 25 years. This war was still occurring when the game's campaign begins, and therefore the Ottomans and Albanians should be at war in 1444, as they used to be up to a certain update. This can be simply balanced by giving Albania better traditions, boosting Skanderbeg, or giving a sequence of events to give their armies more power temporarily.

Thank you for your time. I hope that we can fix these minor issues after all, a game of its type should strive for as complete historical starting scenarios as possible

TLDR: there have been many recent updates that have been straying from historical accuracy, in favor of balancing the game.

I've always been a very strong advocate of realism over user enjoyment, as for me for enjoyment comes from realism. But for the culture groups, i disagree. While linguistically Briton and Basque might be Celtic, culturally they are more related to French and Iberian cultures respectively. Scottish should undoubtedly be in the British group, but i would support a Gaelic culture that would be part of the Celtic group in Northern Scotland. No one uses other start dates besides from 1444, so i think the Charles V issue is more a lack of attention than an intentional thing. That doesn't matter to me. Representing the Guerrilla war that Albania fought against the Ottomans is incredibly hard to represent with the EU4 combat system but i agree that something needs to change because it leads to a Venetian Albania 9/10 games. But what i do want is the 100 years war to be going on game start, or have an event that fires causing France and England to go to war with England not being able to call in allies because they are trying to force a PU over a great power.

 

[Sharp163]

I've always been a very strong advocate of realism over user enjoyment, as for me for enjoyment comes from realism. But for the culture groups, i disagree. While linguistically Briton and Basque might be Celtic, culturally they are more related to French and Iberian cultures respectively. Scottish should undoubtedly be in the British group, but i would support a Gaelic culture that would be part of the Celtic group in Northern Scotland. No one uses other start dates besides from 1444, so i think the Charles V issue is more a lack of attention than an intentional thing. That doesn't matter to me. Representing the Guerrilla war that Albania fought against the Ottomans is incredibly hard to represent with the EU4 combat system but i agree that something needs to change because it leads to a Venetian Albania 9/10 games. But what i do want is the 100 years war to be going on game start, or have an event that fires causing France and England to go to war with England not being able to call in allies because they are trying to force a PU over a great power.

As far as the culture groups go, there will always be debate over where each culture should be placed, as like you said, there is quite a bit of overlap and blurred lines between the different groups and foreign spheres of influence. However, I am glad to see another person who supports my point of view I agree completely with your original statement as well, as the historical accuracy is my source of enjoyment too. The Charles V thing probably was intentional, as Spain and Austria are set as allies in 1550, which is meant to represent the personal union without disrupting the balance of the game. However, this quite bothers me, as even though this personal union is OP, it's also historically accurate. Finally, for the 100 years war, iirc France and England were actually at peace historically in 1444, however it did not last and France reclaimed the last of the territories by 1453, signaling the end of the war(s). I agree that the Hundred Years' War and subsequent war of the roses modifiers should be adjusted (England can have the war of the roses event fire without ever having gone to war.)

Thank you for your contributions!

 

[Sagif]

The main problem with, for example, the Albanian war against the Ottomans, it that you cannot depict that type of warfare (Guerrilla) in game... Try so send 5 stacks of troops multiple times against a stack of 40, nothing will happen.
Combat in EUIV is basically getting everyone together on a field. Fight!
Yes, it's not historical, but this is how the game, the core of the game, works.

Regarding culture groups, I do not know enough of Brittany and Celtic culture to talk about them, but Andalusian culture was EXTREMELY alike it's other Iberian counterparts...
It's a lie that they had more cultural ties to North Africa.
Morocco, Tunis, etc, had a huge influence from Berber tribes, in their way of dressing, eating, etc, etc... In Iberia, the Andalusians had much more cultural ties with a Portuguese or with a Castillian than to a North African... So, yeah, that's it...

 

[Sharp163]

The main problem with, for example, the Albanian war against the Ottomans, it that you cannot depict that type of warfare (Guerrilla) in game... Try so send 5 stacks of troops multiple times against a stack of 40, nothing will happen.
Combat in EUIV is basically getting everyone together on a field. Fight!
Yes, it's not historical, but this is how the game, the core of the game, works.

Regarding culture groups, I do not know enough of Brittany and Celtic culture to talk about them, but Andalusian culture was EXTREMELY alike it's other Iberian counterparts...
It's a lie that they had more cultural ties to North Africa.
Morocco, Tunis, etc, had a huge influence from Berber tribes, in their way of dressing, eating, etc, etc... In Iberia, the Andalusians had much more cultural ties with a Portuguese or with a Castillian than to a North African... So, yeah, that's it...

As I said, there will always be room to debate over culture groups im just glad that we all agree there should be some minor regrouping. However, that is not the main focus of my suggestion, and we shouldn't linger on it. I just want to avoid/correct these recent updates which have been straying from the historical truth, to make the game more balanced.

Perhaps we can do something with the traditions of Albania, to increase the hostile siege attrition modifier, which would help reflect geurilla war?

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

But what i do want is the 100 years war to be going on game start.

This particular thing wouldn't be accurate though. At the start of the game there was a truce between France and England.

About cultures - ever since the breton culture was moved to French I've been for dividing culture group into cultural and linguistic groups so we ccould have safe breton culture in cultural union France or Basques in Spain with their special snowflake linguistic groups. It could also allow us to have some cultures accepted in two countries, e.g. with slight cultural map changes, Commonwealth being cultural union and Russia being linguistic union, both accepting Byelorussian and Ukrainian. Both historically accurate and game enhancing!

 

[Sharp163]

This particular thing wouldn't be accurate though. At the start of the game there was a truce between France and England.

iirc France and England were actually at peace historically in 1444, however it did not last and France reclaimed the last of the territories by 1453, signaling the end of the war(s)

Yep

About cultures - ever since the breton culture was moved to French I've been for dividing culture group into cultural and linguistic groups so we ccould have safe breton culture in cultural union France or Basques in Spain with their special snowflake linguistic groups. It could also allow us to have some cultures accepted in two countries, e.g. with slight cultural map changes, Commonwealth being cultural union and Russia being linguistic union, both accepting Byelorussian and Ukrainian. Both historically accurate and game enhancing!

Belarus went under a period of heavy influence from Poland during the time of the commonwealth, which was followed by a period of heavy Russification following the partitioning of the PLC. However, I think that the cultural and linguistic mapmodes are a good idea

Another thorn in my side has always been Prussian culture. At the time, many people there spoke the Old Prussian language, which was more similar to Lithuanian than anything. Furthermore, even though much their populace spoke German after the Northern Crusades, it is still inaccurate to place "Prussian" in the Germanic group. It even looks strange on the cultural mapmode, with the Prussian area sticking out of the Germanic group like a sore thumb.

What's your opinion on the Charles V issue?

 

[Sharp163]

I forgot to mention something that irked me as well. Courland (Spelled Kurland in EU4, which is fine) was the second smallest European nation to hold colonies in the new world, other than The Knights. However, i noticed that Kurland doesn't have its colonies in Africa and the Caribbean reflected accurately in the timeframe. They are not even present at all! What really bothers me about this is that one of Kurland's national ideas mentions their colonies, and gives a boost to colonial range and naval force limit. Why would they implement this, if not giving Kurland the colonies it deserves? It was quite a rich nation at the time, as well...

 

[neondt]

I forgot to mention something that irked me as well. Courland (Spelled Kurland in EU4, which is fine) was the second smallest European nation to hold colonies in the new world, other than The Knights. However, i noticed that Kurland doesn't have its colonies in Africa and the Caribbean reflected accurately in the timeframe. They are not even present at all! What really bothers me about this is that one of Kurland's national ideas mentions their colonies, and gives a boost to colonial range and naval force limit. Why would they implement this, if not giving Kurland the colonies it deserves? It was quite a rich nation at the time, as well...

Probably because their main colonies were a tiny island in The Gambia and Tobago, neither or which are provinces on the map. Tobago is grouped with Trinidad, and that little bit of Gambia would be way too small to be a clickable province.

 

[Sharp163]

Probably because their main colonies were a tiny island in The Gambia and Tobago, neither or which are provinces on the map. Tobago is grouped with Trinidad, and that little bit of Gambia would be way too small to be a clickable province.

Perhaps the solution would be a minor reorganization of provinces then? It wouldn't be the first time that Paradox has increased the size of an island for aesthetics... *cough Venice*

Also, do you know if The Knights colonies are included accurately? They held a few islands in the Caribbean, if I recall correctly

 

[Sagif]

Perhaps we can do something with the traditions of Albania, to increase the hostile siege attrition modifier, which would help reflect geurilla war?

I wouldn't matter... Even with tradition and terrain, we are talking about what, 5 stacks at most for Albania and more than 20 just for the Ottomans, for example... No terrain, tradition and attrition can sustain that difference...

 

[BrokenSky]

How about a Grand Campaign start which uses the current 1444 stuff and have all later starts be historical and unbalanced? Achievements which required a 1444 start would require grand campaign 1444, not historical (except in special cases). Historical would feature Ottomans vs Albania war etc.

Wrt cultures, the whole Celtic depletion could be worked around by having which group a culture is in be able to shift if every province of that culture is owned by a member of a different culture group (so Brittany -> french when owned by France), subject to some other requirements (possibly have to pay many dip points and wait some time or something).

 

[Sharp163]

How about a Grand Campaign start which uses the current 1444 stuff and have all later starts be historical and unbalanced? Achievements which required a 1444 start would require grand campaign 1444, not historical (except in special cases). Historical would feature Ottomans vs Albania war etc.

Wrt cultures, the whole Celtic depletion could be worked around by having which group a culture is in be able to shift if every province of that culture is owned by a member of a different culture group (so Brittany -> french when owned by France), subject to some other requirements (possibly have to pay many dip points and wait some time or something).

As far as I see it, a history game should try to be as historically accurate as possible otherwise, what's the point?

As for your culture group suggestion, that's a lovely idea, but not even a little bit historically accurate. If that were the case, then the Irish would still be under British rule, the Belarusians would still be similar to the poles, and the Koreans would still be grouped with the Japanese.

 

[grommile]

As far as I see it, a history game should try to be as historically accurate as possible otherwise, what's the point?

The point is selling the game to people who aren't simultaneously both (a) grognards and (b) equipped with top-of-the-line 16-core water-cooled CPUs.

 

[neondt]

The point is selling the game to people who aren't simultaneously both (a) grognards and (b) equipped with top-of-the-line 16-core water-cooled CPUs.

Filthy casuals.

 

[BrokenSky]

As far as I see it, a history game should try to be as historically accurate as possible otherwise, what's the point?

As for your culture group suggestion, that's a lovely idea, but not even a little bit historically accurate. If that were the case, then the Irish would still be under British rule, the Belarusians would still be similar to the poles, and the Koreans would still be grouped with the Japanese.

To be as game? as possible? ... so Fun?

Perhaps Breton -> French and Scottish -> British could be handled by events, but I really dislike special cases when you could solve the problem with more general mechanics. Scottish is a British culture now. It wasn't always. Likewise Breton is more french today than Celtic. So obviously it needs to be something that can sometimes happen, hence the need for other requirements also.

 

[Sharp163]

The point is selling the game to people who aren't simultaneously both (a) grognards and (b) equipped with top-of-the-line 16-core water-cooled CPUs.

The availability and graphical requirements of the game aren't an issue, and by including more historically accurate scenarios, it won't make the game significantly larger/more demanding...

To be as game? as possible? ... so Fun?

Perhaps Breton -> French and Scottish -> British could be handled by events, but I really dislike special cases when you could solve the problem with more general mechanics. Scottish is a British culture now. It wasn't always. Likewise Breton is more french today than Celtic. So obviously it needs to be something that can sometimes happen, hence the need for other requirements also.

But that's the issue. In their pursuit to make it 'fun', some historical accuracy has been compromised

I do like the idea of allowing gradual culture group shifts through events that are specific to a country/culture eg. If Brittany is ruled by France for a certain number of years, then an event can fire saying that the breton language has devolved to being closer to French than anything... It would have to be an event specific to Brittany though, not just any nation. Otherwise, there would be chaos...

 

[Sharp163]

But, overall, what are your opinions? Do you all agree that historical accuracy should take precedence over game balance and pleasing the players? Or not? Feedback is appreciated

 

[grommile]

But, overall, what are your opinions? Do you all agree that historical accuracy should take precedence over game balance and pleasing the players?

Of course not.

It's a game, not a simulator for spectators.

 

[Clausewitz_]

But, overall, what are your opinions? Do you all agree that historical accuracy should take precedence over game balance and pleasing the players? Or not? Feedback is appreciated

I prefer historical plausibility as long as its still a fun game. Most of the time it makes it harder, not less fun, so 9/10 times I'm in favor of historical changes. It is important to make the distinction between historical accuracy, which sometimes isnt good as it comes in the form of railroading, and historical plausibility which is almost always a good thing.